Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/historymethodsof00mars_0 


'■'M1 


HISTORY  AND  METHODS 


PA LiEOMO LOGICAL  DISCOVERY. 


AlSf  ADDRESS, 


DELIVERED  BEFORE  THE 

AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  FOR  THE  ADVANCEMENT  OF  SCIENCE, 
AT  SARATOGA,  N.  Y.,  AUGUST  28,  1879, 


Professor  0.  C.  MARSH, 


President, 


12320 


MAHSH  (Othlel  C.) 

History  and  Methods  of  Palaeontological  Discovery.  An  Address  delivered  before 
the  American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science  at  Saratoga,  N.Y.  August  28, 
1873*  Dp.  50#  &o y#  8vo,  orig.  wrappers.  [N.p.d. ] 


Presentation  copy  from  the  author.  Scholarly  resum£  of  the  whole  history  of 
palaeontology  from  Xenophanes  of  Colophon  [500  B.C.]  to  modern  times. 


HISTORY  AND  METHODS 


OP 


PALEONTOLOGICAL  DISCOVERY. 


AE  ADDRESS, 


DELIVERED  BEFORE  THE 

AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  FOR  THE  ADVANCEMENT  OF  SCIENCE, 
AT  SARATOGA,  N.  Y.,  AUGUST  28,  1879, 


BY 


Professor  0.  C.  MARSH, 


President, 


9J?an  mag  tie  lebenbtgen  SBtrfungen  ber  9?atur  im  ©anjen  unb  ©ro£en  uberfefyen, 
ober  man  mag  bie  UeberMeibfel  ifjrer  entflo^enen  ©eifter  jergltebern :  fte  bleibt 
immer  gletd),  immer  rneljr  bemunberungSmurbtg. — ©  o  e  tl)  e. 


.  hM 


HISTORY  AND  METHODS  OF  PALEONTOLOGICAL 
DISCOVERY. 


“S  Co 

N  55  h 


I 


In  the  rapid  progress  of  knowledge,  we  are  constantly 
brought  face  to  face  with  the  question,  What  is  Life  ?  The 
answer  is  not  yet,  hut  a  thousand  earnest  seekers  after  truth 
seem  to  be  slowly  approaching  a  solution.  This  question  gives 
a  new  interest  to  every  department  of  science  that  relates  to 
life  in  any  form,  and  the  history  of  life  offers  a  most  sug¬ 
gestive  held  for  research.  One  line  of  investigation  lies 
through  embryology,  and  here  the  advance  is  most  encourag¬ 
ing.  Another  promising  path  leads  back  through  the  life 
history  of  the  globe,  and  in  this  direction  we  may  hope  for 
increasing  light,  as  a  reward  for  patient  work. 

The  plants  and  animals  now  living  on  the  earth  interest  alike 
the  savage  and  the  savant,  and  hence  have  been  carefully 
observed  in  every  age  of  human  history.  The  life  of  the 
remote  past,  however,  is  preserved  only  in  scanty  records, 
buried  in  the  earth,  and  therefore  readily  escapes  attention. 
For  these  reasons,  the  study  of  ancient  life  is  one  of  the  latest 
of  modern  sciences,  and  among  the  most  difficult.  In  view  of 
the  great  advances  which  this  department  of  knowledge  has 
made  within  the  last  decade,  especially  in  this  country,  I  have 
thought  it  fitting  to  the  present  occasion  to  review  briefly 
its  development,  and  have  chosen  for  my  subject  this  even¬ 
ing,  The  History  and  Methods  of  Palaeontological 
Discovery. 


4 


In  the  short  time  now  at  my  command,  I  can  only  attempt 
to  present  a  rapid  sketch  of  the  principal  steps  in  the  progress 
of  this  science.  The  literature  of  the  subject,  especially  in 
connection  with  the  discussions  it  provoked,  is  voluminous, 
and  an  outline  of  the  history  itself  must  suffice  for  my  present 
purpose. 

In  looking  over  the  records  of  Palaeontology,  its  history  may 
conveniently  be  divided  into  four  periods,  well  marked  by 
prominent  features,  but,  like  all  stages  of  intellectual  growth, 
without  definite  boundaries. 

The  first  period,  dating  back  to  the  time  when  men  first 
noticed  fossil  remains  in  the  rocks,  and  queried  as  to  their 
nature,  is  of  special  historic  interest.  The  most  prominent 
characteristic  of  this  period  was,  a  long  and  bitter  contest  as 
to  the  nature  of  fossil  remains.  W ere  they  mere  “  sports  of 
Hature,”  or  had  they  once  been  endowed  with  life  ?  Simple  as 
this  problem  now  seems,  centuries  passed  before  the  wise  men 
of  that  time  were  agreed  upon  its  solution. 

Sea  shells  in  the  solid  rock  on  the  tops  of  mountains  early 
attracted  the  attention  of  the  ancients,  and  the  learned  men 
among  them  seem  to  have  appreciated  in  some  instances 
their  true  character,  and  given  rational  explanations  of  their 
presence. 

The  philosopher  Zenophanes,  of  Colophon,  who  lived  about 
500  B.  C.,  mentions  the  remains  of  fishes  and  other  animals 
in  the  stone  quarries  near  Syracuse ;  the  impression  of  an 
anchovy  in  the  rock  of  Paros,  and  various  marine  fossils  at 
other  places.  His  conclusion  from  these  facts  was,  that  the 
surface  of  the  earth  had  once  been  in  a  soft  condition  at  the 
bottom  of  the  sea ;  and  thus  the  objects  mentioned  were 
entombed.  Herodotus,  half  a  century  later,  speaks  of  marine 
shells  on  the  hills  of  Egypt,  and  over  the  Libyan  desert,  and  he 
inferred  therefrom  that  the  sea  had  once  covered  that  whole 
region.  Empedocles,  of  Agrigentum  (450  B.  C.),  believed 


5 


40 


that  the  many  hippopotamus  bones  found  in  Sicily  were 
remains  of  human  giants,  in  comparison  with  which  the  pres¬ 
ent  race  were  as  children.  Here,  he  thought,  was  a  battle 
held  between  the  gods  and  the  Titans,  and  the  bones  belonged 
to  the  slain.  Pythagoras  (582  B.  C.)  had  already  anticipated 
one  conclusion  of  modern  geology,  if  the  following  statement, 
attributed  to  him  by  Ovid,  was  his  own  :* 

Vidi  ego  quod  fuerat  solidissima  tellus, 

Esse  fretum  :  vidi  factas  ex  sequore  terras  ; 

Et  procul  a  pelago  conchae  jacuere  marinse. 

Aristotle  (384-322  B.  C.)  was  not  only  aware  of  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  fossils  in  the  rocks,  but  has  also  placed  on  record  saga¬ 
cious  views  as  to  the  changes  in  the  earth’s  surface  necessary 
to  account  for  them.  In  the  second  book  of  his  Meteorics,  he 
says  :  “  The  changes  of  the  earth  are  so  slow  in  comparison  to 
the  duration  of  our  lives,  that  they  are  overlooked  ;  and  the 
migrations  of  people  after  great  catastrophes  and  their  removal 
to  other  regions,  cause  the  event  to  be  forgotten.”  Again,  in 
the  same  work,  he  says :  “As  time  never  fails,  and  the  universe 
is  eternal,  neither  the  Tanais,  nor  the  Nile,  can  have  flowed 
for  ever.  The  places  where  they  rise  were  once  dry,  and  there 
is  a  limit  to  their  operations  :  but  there  is  none  to  time.  So 
of  all  other  rivers  ;  they  spring  up,  and  they  perish  ;  and  the 
sea  also  continually  deserts  some  lands  and  invades  others. 
The  same  tracts,  therefore,  of  the  earth  are  not,  some  always 
sea,  and  others  always  continents,  but  everything  changes  in 
the  course  of  time.” 

Aristotle’s  views  on  the  subject  of  spontaneous  generation 
were  less  sound,  and  his  doctrines  on  this  subject  exerted  a 
powerful  influence  for  the  succeeding  twenty  centuries.  In 
the  long  discussion  that  followed  concerning  the  nature  of 
fossil  remains,  Aristotle’s  views  were  paramount.  He  believed 
that  animals  could  originate  from  moist  earth  or  the  slime  of 
rivers,  and  this  seemed  to  the  people  of  that  period  a  much 


*  Metamorphoses,  Liber  XV,  262. 


6 


simpler  way  of  accounting  for  the  remains  of  animals  in  the 
rocks  than  the  marvelous  changes  of  sea  and  land  otherwise 
required  to  explain  their  presence.  Aristotle’s  opinion  was  in 
accordance  with  the  Biblical  account  of  the  creation  of  Man 
out  of  the  dust  of  the  earth,  and  hence  more  readily  obtained 
credence. 

Theophrastus,  a  pupil  of  Aristotle,  alludes  to  fossil  fishes 
found  near  Heraclea,  in  Pontus,  and  in  Paphlagonia,  and  says  : 
“  They  were  either  developed  from  fish  spawn  left  behind  in 
the  earth,  or  gone  astray  from  rivers  or  the  sea  into  cavities  of 
the  earth,  where  they  had  become  petrified.”  In  treating  of 
fossil  ivory  and  bones,  the  same  writer  supposed  them  to  be 
produced  by  a  certain  plastic  virtue  latent  in  the  earth.  To 
this  same  cause,  as  we  shall  see,  many  later  authors  attributed 
the  origin  of  all  fossil  remains. 

Previous  to  this,  Anaximander,  the  Miletian  philosopher, 
who  was  born  about  610  years  before  Christ,  had  expressed 
essentially  the  same  view.  According  to  both  Plutarch  and 
Censorinus,  Anaximander  taught  that  fishes,  or  animals  very 
like  fishes,  sprang  from  heated  water  and  earth,  and  from  these 
animals  came  the  human  race ;  a  statement  which  can  hardly 
be  considered  as  anticipating  the  modern  idea  of  evolution,  as 
some  authors  have  imagined. 

The  Bomans  added  but  little  to  the  knowledge  possessed  by 
the  Greeks  in  regard  to  fossil  remains.  Pliny  (23-79  A.  H), 
however,  seems  to  have  examined  such  objects  with  interest, 
and  in  his  renowned  work  on  Natural  History  gave  names 
to  several  forms.  He  doubtless  borrowed  largely  from  Theo¬ 
phrastus,  who  wrote  about  three  hundred  years  before.  Among 
the  objects  named  by  Pliny  were,  “  Bucardia ,  like  to  an  ox’s 
heart “  Brontia ,  resembling  the  head  of  a  tortoise,  supposed 
to  fall  in  thunder  storms;”  “ Glossojotra,  similar  to  a  human 
tongue,  which  does  not  grow  in  the  earth,  but  falls  from 
heaven  while  the  moon  is  eclipsed  “  the  Horn  of  Ammon , 
possessing,  with  a  golden  color,  the  figure  of  a  ram’s  horn 


e 


7 


Ceraunia  and  Ombria ,  supposed  to  be  thunderbolts ;  Ostra- 
cites ,  resembling  the  oyster  shell ;  Sjpongites ,  having  the  form 
of  sponge  ;  Phycites ,  similar  to  sea-weed  or  rushes.  He  also 
mentions  stones  resembling  the  teeth  of  hippopotamus ;  and 
says  that  Theophrastus  speaks  of  fossil  ivory,  both  black  and 
white,  of  bones  born  in  the  earth,  and  of  stones  bearing  the 
figure  of  bones. 

Tertullian  (160  A.  D.)  mentions  instances  of  the  remains 
of  sea  animals  on  the  mountains,  far  from  the  sea,  but  uses 
them  as  a  proof  of  the  general  deluge  recorded  in  Scripture. 

During  the  next  thirteen  or  fourteen  centuries,  fossil  remains 
of  animals  and  plants  seemed  to  have  attracted  so  little  atten¬ 
tion,  that  few  references  are  made  to  them  by  the  writers  of 
this  period.  During  these  ages  of  darkness,  all  departments  of 
knowledge  suffered  alike,  and  feeble  repetitions  of  ideas  de¬ 
rived  from  the  ancients  seem  to  have  been  about  the  only 
contributions  of  that  period  to  Natural  Science. 

Albert  the  Great  (1205-1280  A.  D.),  the  most  learned  man 
of  his  time,  mentions  that  a  branch  of  a  tree  was  found,  on 
which  was  a  bird’s  nest  containing  birds,  the  whole  being  solid 
stone.  He  accounted  for  this  strange  phenomenon  by  the  ms 
formativa  of  Aristotle,  an  occult  force,  which,  according  to  the 
prevalent  notions  of  the  time,  was  capable  of  forming  most  of 
the  extraordinary  objects  discovered  in  the  earth. 

Alexander  db  Alexandro ,  of  Naples,  states  that  he  saw,  in 
the  mountains  of  Calabria,  a  considerable  distance  from  the 
sea,  a  variegated  hard  marble,  in  which  many  sea  shells  but 
little  changed  were  heaped,  forming  one  mass  with  the  marble. 

With  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century,  a  great  impetus 
was  given  to  the  investigation  of  organic  fossils,  especially  in 
Italy,  where  this  study  really  began.  The  discovery  of  fossil 
shells,  which  abound  in  this  region,  now  attracted  great  atten¬ 
tion,  and  a  fierce  discussion  soon  arose  as  to  the  true  nature  of 
these  and  other  remains.  The  ideas  of  Aristotle  in  regard  to 


8 


spontaneous  generation,  and  especially  his  view  of  the  hidden 
forces  of  the  earth,  which  he  claimed  had  power  to  produce 
such  remains,  now  for  the  first  time  were  seriously  ques¬ 
tioned,  although  it  was  not  till  nearly  two  centuries  later  that 
these  doctrines  lost  their  dominant  influence. 

Leonardo  da  Vinci,  the  renowned  painter  and  philosopher, 
who  was  horn  in  1452,  strongly  opposed  the  commonly  accepted 
opinions  as  to  the  origin  of  organized  fossils.  He  claimed  that 
the  fossil  shells  under  discussion  were  what  they  seemed,  and 
had  once  lived  at  the  bottom  of  the  sea.  “You  tell  me,”  he 
says,  “  that  Nature  and  the  influence  of  the  stars  have  formed 
these  shells  in  the  mountains ;  then  show  me  a  place  in  the 
mountains  where  the  stars  at  the  present  day  make  shelly  forms 
of  different  ages,  and  of  different  species  in  the  same  place.” 
Again,  he  says,  “In  what  manner  can  such  a  cause  account 
for  the  petrifactions  in  the  same  place  of  various  leaves,  sea¬ 
weeds,  and  marine  crabs  ?” 

In  1517,  excavations  in  the  vicinity  of  Verona  brought  to 
light  many  curious  petrifactions,  which  led  to  much  specu¬ 
lation  as  to  their  nature  and  origin.  Among  the  various 
authors  who  wrote  on  this  subject  was  Fracastoro,  who  declared 
that  the  fossils  once  belonged  to  living  animals,  which  had 
lived  and  multiplied  where  found.  He  ridiculed  the  prevailing 
ideas  that  the  plastic  force  of  the  ancients  could  fashion  stones 
into  organic  forms.  Some  writers  claimed  that  these  shells 
had  been  left  by  Noah’s  flood,  hut  to  this  idea  Fracastoro 
offered  a  mass  of  evidence,  which  would  now  seem  conclusive, 
hut  which  then  only  aroused  hitter  hostility.  That  inundation, 
he  said,  was  too  transient ;  it  consisted  mainly  of  fresh  water  ; 
and  if  it  had  transported  shells  to  great  distances,  must  have 
scattered  them  over  the  surface,  not  buried  them  in  the 
interior  of  mountains. 

Conrad  Gesner  (1516-1565),  whose  history  of  animals  has 
been  considered  the  basis  of  modern  zoology,  published  at 
Zurich  in  1565  a  small  hut  important  work  entitled  uDe  omni 
rerum  fossilium  genere .”  It  contained  a  catalogue  of  the 


9 


collection  of  fossils  made  by  John  Kentmann.  This  is  the 
oldest  catalogue  of  fossils  witli  which  I  am  acquainted. 

George  Agricola  (1494-1555)  was,  according  to  Cuvier,  the 
first  mineralogist  who  appeared  after  the  revival  of  learning  in 
Europe.  In  his  great  work,  “ De  lie  Metallica ,”  published  in 
1546,  he  mentions  various  fossil  remains,  and  says  they  were 
produced  by  a  certain  “  materia  jpinguis ,”  or  fatty  matter,  set 
in  fermentation  by  heat.  Some  years  later,  Bauhin  published 
a  descriptive  catalogue  of  the  fossils  he  had  collected  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Boll,  in  Wurtemberg.* 

Andrew  Mattioli,  a  distinguished  botanist,  adopted  Agricola’s 
notion  as  to  the  origin  of  organized  fossils,  but  admitted  that 
shells  and  bones  might  be  turned  into  stone  by  being  permeated 
by  a  “lapidifying  juice.”  Ealloppio,  the  eminent  professor 
of  anatomy  at  Padua,  believed  that  fossil  shells  were  generated 
by  fermentation  where  they  were  found  ;  and  that  the  tusks  of 
elephants,  dug  up  near  Apulia,  were  merely  earthy  concretions. 
Mercati,  in  1574,  published  figures  of  the  fossil  shells  preserved 
in  the  Museum  of  the  Vatican,  but  expressed  the  opinion  that 
they  were  only  stones,  that  owed  their  peculiar  shapes  to  the 
heavenly  bodies.  Olivi,  of  Cremona,  described  the  fossils  in  the 
Museum  at  Yerona,  and  considered  them  all  “  sports  of  nature.” 

Palissy,  a  French  author,  in  1580,  opposed  these  views,  and 
is  said  to  have  been  the  first  to  assert  in  Paris  that  fossil  shells 
and  fishes  had  once  belonged  to  marine  animals.  Fabio  Colonna 
appears  to  have  first  pointed  out  that  some  of  the  fossil  shells 
found  in  Italy  wTere  marine,  and  some  terrestrial. 

Another  peculiar  theory  discussed  in  the  sixteenth  century 
deserves  mention.  This  was  the  vegetation  theory,  especially 
advocated  by  Tournefort  and  Camerarius,  both  eminent  as 
botanists.  These  writers  believed  that  the  seeds  of  minerals 
and  fossils  were  diffused  throughout  the  sea  and  the  earth,  and 
were  developed  into  their  peculiar  forms  by  the  regular  incre¬ 
ment  of  their  particles,  similar  to  the  formation  of  crystals. 

*  Historia  novi  et  admirabilis  Fontis  Balneique  Bollensis ,  in  Ducaiu  Wirtem- 
bergico.  Montbeliard ,  1598. 


9 


“  How  could  the  Cornu  Ammonis ,”  Tournefort  asked,  “  which 
is  constantly  in  the  figure  of  a  volute,  he  formed  without  a 
seed  containing  the  same  structure  in  the  small,  as  in  the 
larger  forms  ?  Who  moulded  it  so  artfully,  and  where  are  the 
moulds  ?  ”  The  stalactites  which  formed  in  caverns  in  various 
parts  of  the  world  were  also  supposed  to  be  proofs  of  this 
vegetative  growth. 

Still  another  theory  has  been  held  at  various  times,  and  is 
not  yet  entirely  forgotten,  namely:  that  the  Creator  made 
fossil  animals  and  plants  just  as  they  are  found  in  the  rocks, 
in  pursuance  of  a  plan  beyond  our  comprehension.  This 
theory  has  never  prevailed  among  those  familiar  with  scientific 
facts,  and  hence  needs  here  no  further  consideration. 

An  interest  in  fossil  remains  arose  in  England  later  than  on 
the  continent ;  but  when  attention  was  directed  to  them, 
the  first  opinions  as  to  their  origin  were  not  less  fanciful  and 
erroneous  than  those  to  which  we  have  already  referred.  Dr. 
Plot,  in  his  “Natural  History  of  Oxfordshire,”  published  in 
1677,  considered  the  origin  of  fossil  shells  and  fishes  to  be  due 
to  a  “  plastic  virtue,  latent  in  the  earth,”  as  Theophrastus  had 
suggested  long  before.  Lhwyd,  in  his  “ LithojpJiylacii  Britan- 
nici  Ichnograjphia ,”  published  at  Oxford  in  1699,  gives  a  cata¬ 
logue  of  English  fossils  contained  in  the  Ashmolean  Museum. 
He  opposed  the  vis  jplastioa  theory,  and  expressed  the  ojfinion 
that  the  spawn  of  fishes  and  other  marine  animals  had  been 
raised  with  the  vapors  from  the  sea,  conveyed  inland  by  clouds, 
and  deposited  by  rain,  had  permeated  into  the  interior  of  the 
earth,  and  thus  produced  the  fossil  remains  we  find  in  the 
rocks.  About  this  time  several  important  works  were  pub¬ 
lished  in  England  by  Dr.  Martin  Lister,  which  did  much  to 
infuse,  a  true  knowledge  of  fossil  remains.  He  gave  figures 
of  recent  shells  side  by  side  with  some  of  the  fossil  forms,  so 
that  the  resemblance  became  at  once  apparent.  The  fossil 
species  of  shells  he  called  “turbinated  and  bivalve  stones,” 
and  adds,  “  either  these  were  terriginous,  or,  if  otherwise,  the 
animals  which  they  so  exactly  represent  have  become  extinct.” 


11 


During  tlie  seventeenth  century  there  was  a  considerable 
advance  in  the  study  of  fossil  remains.  The  discussions  in 
regard  to  the  nature  and  origin  of  these  objects,  had  called 
attention  to  them,  and  many  collections  were  now  made,  espe¬ 
cially  in  Italy,  and  also  in  Germany,  where  a  strong  interest 
in  this  subject  had  been  aroused.  Catalogues  of  these  collec¬ 
tions  were  not  unfrequently  published,  and  some  of  them  were 
illustrated  with  such  accurate  figures,  that  many  of  the  species 
can  now  he  readily  recognized.  In  this  century,  too,  an 
important  step  in  advance  was  made  by  the  collection  and 
description  of  fossils  from  particular  localities  and  regions,  in 
distinction  from  general  collections  of  curiosities. 

Casper  Schwenkfeld,  in  1600,  published  a  catalogue  of  the 
fossils  discovered  in  Silesia  ;  in  1622,  a  detailed  description  of 
the  renowned  Museum  of  Calceolarius,  of  Y erona,  appeared ; 
and  in  1642,  a  catalogue  of  Besler’s  collection.  Wormius’s  cata¬ 
logue  was  published  in  1652  ;  Spener’s  in  1663  ;  and  Septala’s 
in  1666.  A  description  of  the  Museum  of  the  King  of  Den¬ 
mark  was  issued  in  1669  ;  Cottorp’s  catalogue  in  1614;  and  that 
of  the  renowned  Kirscher  in  1618.  Dr.  Grew  gave  an  account 
in  1681  of  the  specimens  in  the  Museum  of  Gresham’s  College 
in  England ;  and  in  1695,  Petiver  of  London  published  a  cata¬ 
logue  of  his  very  extensive  collection.  A  catalogue  by  Fred. 
Lauchmund,  on  the  fossils  of  Hildesliein,  appeared  in  1669, 
and  the  fossils  of  Switzerland  were  described  by  John  Jacob 
Wagner  in  1689.  Among  similar  works,  were  the  dissertations 
of  Gyer,  at  Frankfort,  and  Alhertus,  at  Leipsic. 

Steno,  a  Dane,  who  had  been  professor  of  anatomy  at  Padua, 
published,  in  1669,  one  of  the  most  important  works  of  this 
period.*  He  entered  earnestly  into  the  controversy  as  to  the 
origin  of  fossil  remains,  and  by  dissecting  a  shark  from  the 
Mediterranean,  proved  that  its  teeth  were  identical  with  some 
found  fossil  in  Tuscany.  He  also  compared  the  fossil  shells 
found  in  Italy  with  existing  species,  and  pointed  out  their 
resemblance.  In  the  same  work,  Steno  expressed  some  very 

*  Be  solido  intra  solidum  naturaliter  contento. 


important  views  in  regard  to  the  different  kinds  of  strata,  and 
their  origin,  and  first  placed  on  record  the  important  fact  that 
the  oldest  rocks  contain  no  fossils. 

Scilla,  the  Sicilian  painter,  published  in  1670  a  work  on  the 
fossils  of  Calabria,  well  illustrated.  He  is  very  severe  against 
those  who  doubted  the  organic  origin  of  fossils,  but  is  inclined 
to  consider  them  relics  of  the  Mosaic  deluge. 

Another  instance  of  the  power  of  the  lusus  natural  theory, 
even  at  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century,  deserves  mention. 
In  the  year  1696,  the  skeleton  of  a  fossil  elephant  was  dug  up 
at  Tonna,  near  Gotha,  in  Germany,  and  was  described  by 
William  Ernest  Tentzel,  a  teacher  in  the  Gotha  Gymnasium. 
He  declared  the  bones  to  be  the  remains  of  an  animal  that  had 
lived  long  before.  The  Medical  Faculty  in  Gotha,  however, 
considered  the  subject,  and  decided  officially  that  this  specimen 
was  only  a  freak  of  nature. 

Beside  the  authors  I  have  mentioned,  there  were  many 
others  who  wrote  about  fossil  remains  before  the  close  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  and  took  part  in  the  general  discussion  as 
to  their  nature  and  origin.  During  the  progress  of  this  con¬ 
troversy  the  most  fantastic  theories  were  broached  and  stoutly 
defended,  and  although  refuted  from  time  to  time  by  a  few 
clear-headed  men,  continually  sprang  up  anew,  in  the  same  or 
modified  forms.  The  influence  of  Aristotle’s  views  of  equivo¬ 
cal  generation,  and  especially  the  scholastic  tendency  to  dispu¬ 
tation,  so  prevalent  during  the  middle  ages,  had  contributed 
largely  to  the  retardation  of  progress,  and  yet  a  real  advance 
in  knowledge  had  been  made.  The  long  contest  in  regard  to 
the  nature  of  fossil  remains  was  essentially  over,  for  the  more 
intelligent  opinion '  at  the  time  now  acknowledged  that  these 
objects  were  not  mere  “  sports  of  nature,”  but  had  once  been 
endowed  with  life.  At  this  point,  therefore,  the  first  period 
in  the  history  of  Palaeontology,*  as  I  have  indicated  it,  may 
appropriately  end. 

It  is  true  that  later  still,  the  old  exploded  errors  about  the 
plastic  force  and  fermentation  were  from  time  to  time  revived, 


13 


as  they  have  been  almost  to  the  present  day ;  bnt  learned  men, 
with  few  exceptions,  no  longer  seriously  questioned  that  fossils 
were  real  organisms,  as  the  ancients  had  once  believed.  The 
many  collections  of  fossils  that  had  been  brought  together,  and 
the  illustrated  works  that  had  been  published  about  them,  were 
a  foundation  for  greater  progress,  and,  with  the  eighteenth  cen¬ 
tury,  the  second  period  in  the  history  of  Palaeontology  began. 

The  main  characteristic  of  this  period  was  the  general  belief, 
that  fossil  remains  were  deposited  by  the  Mosaic  deluge.  W  e 
have  seen  that  this  view  had  already  been  advanced,  but  it  was 
not  till  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century  that  it  became 
the  prevailing  view.  This  doctrine  was  strongly  opposed  by 
some  courageous  men,  and  the  discussion  on  the  subject  soon 
became  even  more  bitter  than  the  previous  one,  as  to  the 
nature  of  fossils. 

In  this  diluvial  discussion  theologians  and  laymen  alike  took 
part.  For  nearly  a  century  the  former  had  it  all  their  own 
way,  for  the  general  public,  then  as  now,  believed  what  they 
were  taught.  Noah’s  flood  was  thought  to  have  been  universal, 
and  was  the  only  general  catastrophe  of  which  the  people  of 
that  day  had  any  knowledge  or  conception. 

The  scholars  among  them  were  of  course  familiar  with  the 
accounts  of  Deucalion  and  his  ark,  in  a  previous  deluge,  as  we 
are  to-day  with  similar  traditions  held  by  various  races  of  men. 
The  firm  belief  that  the  earth  and  all  it  contains  was  created 
in  six  days  ;  that  all  life  on  the  globe  was  destroyed  by  the 
deluge,  except  alone  what  Noah  saved ;  and  that  the  earth 
and  its  inhabitants  were  to  be  destroyed  by  fire,  was  the  foun¬ 
dation  on  which  all  knowledge  of  the  earth  was  based.  With 
such  fixed  opinions,  the  fossil  remains  of  animals  and  plants 
were  naturally  regarded  as  relics  left  by  the  flood  described  in 
Holy  Writ.  The  dominant  nature  of  this  belief  is  seen  in 
nearly  all  the  literature  in  regard  to  fossils  published  at  this 
time,  and  some  of  the  works  which  then  appeared  have  become 
famous  on  this  account. 


14 


In  1710,  David  Biittner  published  a  volume  entitled  “Ruder a 
Diluvii  Testes .”  He  strongly  opposed  Lhwyd’s  explanation 
of  the  origin  of  fossils,  and  referred  these  objects  directly  to 
the  Flood.  The  most  renowned  work,  however,  of  this  time, 
was  published  at  Zurich,  in  1726,  by  Scheuchzer,  a  physician 
and  naturalist,  and  professor  in  the  University  of  Altorf.  It 
bore  the  title  “ Homo  Dilumi  Testis  P  The  specimen  upon 
which  this  work  was  based  was  found  at  Oeningen,  and  was 
regarded  as  the  skeleton  of  a  child  destroyed  by  the  Deluge. 
The  author  recognized  in  this  remarkable  fossil,  not  merely  the 
skeleton,  but  also  portions  of  the  muscles,  the  liver,  and  the 
brain.  The  same  author  was  fortunate  enough  to  discover, 
subsequently,  near  Altorf,  two  fossil  vertebrae,  which  he  at 
once  referred  to  that  “  Accursed  race  destroyed  by  the  Flood !” 
These,  also,  he  carefully  described  and  figured  in  his  “Physiea 
Sacra,”  published  at  Ulm  in  1731.  Engravings  of  both  were 
subsequently  given  in  the  “  Copper-Bible.”  Cuvier  afterward 
examined  these  interesting  relics,  and  pronounced  the  skeleton 
of  the  supposed  child  to  be  the  remains  of  a  gigantic 
Salamander,  and  the  two  vertebrae  to  be  those  of  an 
Ichthyosaurus ! 

Another  famous  book  appeared  in  Germany  in  the  same  year 
in  which  Scheuclizer’s  first  volume  was  published.  The  author 
was  John  Bartholomew  Adam  Beringer,  professor  at  the  Uni¬ 
versity  of  Wurtzburg,  and  his  great  work*  indirectly  had  an 
important  influence  upon  the  investigation  of  fossil  remains. 
The  history  of  the  work  is  instructive,  if  only  as  an  indication 
of  the  state  of  knowledge  at  that  date.  Professor  Beringer,  in 
accordance  with  views  of  his  time,  had  taught  his  pupils  that 
fossil  remains,  or  “  figured  stones,”  as  they  were  called,  were 
mere  “  sports  of  nature.”  Some  of  his  fun-loving  students 
reasoned  among  themselves,  “  If  Nature  can  make  figured 
stones  in  sport,  why  cannot  we  ?”  Accordingly,  from  the  soft 

*  Lithographia  Wirceburgensis,  ducentis  lapidum  figuratorum,  a  potiori ,  insecti- 
formium,  prodigiosis  imaginibus  exornaia.  Wirceburgi,  1726.  Edit.  II.  Franco- 
furti  et  Lipsiae. 


limestone  in  the  neighboring  hills,  they  carved  out  figures  of 
marvelous  and  fantastic  forms,  and  buried  them  at  the  localities 
where  the  learned  Professor  was  accustomed  to  dig  for  his 
fossil  treasures.  His  delight  at  the  discovery  of  these  strange 
forms  encouraged  further  production,  and  taxed  the  ingenuity 
of  these  youthful  imitators  of  Nature’s  secret  processes.  At 
last  Beringer  had  a  large  and  unique  collection  of  forms, 
new  to  him,  and  to  science,  which  he  determined  to  publish  to 
the  world.  After  long  and  patient  study,  his  work  appeared, 
in  Latin,  dedicated  to  the  reigning  prince  of  the  country,  and 
illustrated  with  twenty-one  folio  plates.  Soon  after  the  book 
was  published,  the  deception  practiced  upon  the  credulous 
Professor  became  known;  and,  in  place  of  the  glory  he  ex¬ 
pected  from  his  great  undertaking,  he  received  only  ridicule 
and  disgrace.  He  at  once  endeavored  to  repurchase  and 
destroy  the  volumes  already  issued,  and  succeeded  so  far  that 
few  copies  of  the  first  edition  remain.  His  small  fortune, 
which  had  been  seriously  impaired  in  bringing  out  his  grand 
work,  was  exhausted  in  the  effort  to  regain  what  was  already 
issued,  as  the  price  rapidly  advanced  in  proportion  as  fewer 
copies  remained ;  and,  mortified  at  the  failure  of  his  life’s 
work,  he  died  in  poverty.  It  is  said  that  some  of  his  family, 
dissatisfied  with  the  misfortune  brought  upon  them  by  this 
disgrace  and  the  loss  of  their  patrimony,  used  a  remaining  copy 
for  the  production  of  a  second  edition,  which  met  with  a  large 
sale,  sufficient  to  repair  the  previous  loss,  and  restore  the 
family  fortune.  This  work  of  Beringer,  in  the  end,  exerted 
an  excellent  influence  upon  the  dawning  science  of  fossil 
remains.  Observers  became  more  cautious  in  announcing 
supposed  discoveries,  and  careful  study  of  natural  objects 
gradually  replaced  vague  hypotheses. 

The  above  works,  however,  are  hardly  fair  examples  of  the 
literature  on  fossils  during  this  part  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
Scheuchzer  had  previously  published  his  well-known  “  Com¬ 
plaint  and  Vindication  of  the  Fishes,”  illustrated  with  good 
plates.  Moro,  in  his  work  on  “  Marine  Bodies  which  are 


16 


found  in  tlie  Mountains,”  1740,  showed  the  effects  of  volcanic 
action  in  elevating  strata,  and  causing  faults.  Yallisneri  had 
studied  with  care  the  marine  deposits  of  Italy.  Donati,  in 
1750,  had  investigated  the  Adriatic,  and  ascertained  by  sound¬ 
ings  that  shells  and  corals  were  being  imbedded  in  the  deposits 
there,  just  as  they  were  found  in  the  rocks. 

John  Gesner’s  dissertation,  uDe  Petrificatis ,”  published  at 
Leyden  in  1758,  was  a  valuable  contribution  to  the  science. 
He  enumerated  the  various  kinds  of  fossils,  and  the  different 
conditions  in  which  they  are  found  petrified,  and  stated  that 
some  of  them,  like  those  at  Oeningen,  resembled  the  shells, 
fishes,  and  plants  of  the  neighboring  region,  while  others,  such 
as  Ammonites  and  Belemnites,  were  either  unknown  species,  or 
those  found  only  in  distant  seas.  He  discusses  the  structure  of 
the  earth  at  length,  and  speculates  as  to  the  causes  of  changes  in 
sea  and  land.  He  estimates  that,  at  the  observed  rate  of  reces¬ 
sion  of  the  ocean,  to  allow  the  Appenines,  whose  summits  are 
filled  with  marine  shells,  to  reach  their  present  height,  would 
have  taken  about  eighty  thousand  years,  a  period  more  than 
“  ten  times  greater  than  the  age  of  the  universe.”  He  accord¬ 
ingly  refers  the  change  to  the  direct  command  of  the  Deity, 
as  related  by  Moses,  that,  “  The  waters  should  be  gathered 
together  in  one  place,  and  the  dry  land  appear.” 

Voltaire  (1694-1778),  discussed  geological  questions  and  the 
nature  of  fossils  in  several  of  his  works,  but  his  published 
opinions  are  far  from  consistent.  He  ridiculed  effectively  and 
justly  the  cosmogonists  of  his  day,  and  showed,  also,  that  he 
knew  the  true  nature  of  organic  remains.  Finding,  however, 
that  theologians  used  these  objects  to  confirm  the  Scriptural 
account  of  the  deluge,  he  changed  his  views,  and  accounted  for 
fossil  shells  found  in  the  Alps,  by  suggesting  that  they  were 
Eastern  species,  dropped  by  the  pilgrims  on  their  return  from 
the  Holy  Land  ! 

Buffon,  in  1749,  published  his  important  work  on  Natural 
History,  and  included  in  it  his  “  Theory  of  the  Earth,”  in 
which  he  discussed,  with  much  ability,  many  points  in  Geology. 


6 


I 


17 

Soon  after  the  hook  was  published,  he  received  an  official  letter 
from  the  Faculty  of  Theology  in  Paris,  stating  that  fourteen 
propositions  in  his  works  were  reprehensible,  and  contrary  to 
the  creed  of  the  church.  The  first  objectionable  proposition 
was  as  follows  :  “  The  waters  of  the  sea  have  produced  the 
mountains  and  valleys  of  the  land, — the  waters  of  the  heavens 
reducing  all  to  a  level,  will  at  last  deliver  the  whole  land  over 
to  the  sea,  and  the  sea  successively  prevailing  over  the  land, 
will  leave  dry  new  continents  like  those  we  inhabit.” 

Buffon  was  politely  requested  by  the  college  to  recant,  and 
having  no  particular  desire  to  he  a  martyr  to  science,  submitted 
the  following  declaration,  which  he  was  required  to  publish  in 
his  next  work :  “  I  declare  that  I  had  no  intention  to  contra¬ 
dict  the  text  of  Scripture  ;  that  I  believe  most  firmly  all 
therein  related  about  the  creation,  both  as  to  order  of  time  and 
matter  of  fact ;  and  I  abandon  everything  in  my  hook  respect¬ 
ing  the  formation  of  the  earth,  and,  generally,  all  which  may 
he  contrary  to  the  narration  of  Moses.” 

This  single  instance  will  suffice  to  indicate  one  great  obsta¬ 
cle  to  the  advancement  of  science,  even  up  to  the  middle  of 
the  eighteenth  century. 

Another  important  work  appeared  in  France  about  this  time, 
Bourguet’s  “ Traite  des  Petrifactions ,”  published  in  1758,  which 
is  well  illustrated  with  faithful  plates.  In  England,  a  discourse 
on  earthquakes,  by  Dr.  Robert  Flooke,  was  published  in  1705. 
This  author  held  some  views  in  advance  of  his  time,  and  main¬ 
tained  that  figured  stones  were  “  really  the  several  bodies  they 
represent  or  the  moldings  of  them  petrified,  and  not,  as  some 
have  imagined,  a  lusus  naturaz ,  sporting  herself  in  the  needless 
formation  of  useless  things.”  He  anticipates  one  important 
conclusion  from  fossils,  when  he  states  that  “  though  it  must 
he  very  difficult  to  read  them  and  to  raise  a  chronology  out  of 
them,  and  to  state  the  intervals  of  time  wherein  such  or  such 
catastrophes  and  mutations  have  happened,  yet  it  is  not  im¬ 
possible.”  He  also  states  that  fossil  turtles,  and  such  large 
Ammonites  as  are  found  in  Portland,  seem  to  have  been  the 
3 


productions  of  liotter  countries,  and  lienee  it  is  necessary  to 
suppose  that  England  once  lay  under  the  sea  within  the  torrid 
zone.  He  seems  to  have  suspected  that  some  of  the  fossils  of 
England  belonged  to  extinct  species,  but  thought  they  might 
possibly  be  found  living  in  the  bottom  of  distant  oceans. 

Dr.  Woodward’s  “Natural  History  of  the  Fossils  of  Eng¬ 
land”  appeared  in  1729.  This  work  was  based  on  a  systematic 
collection  of  fossils  which  he  had  brought  together,  and  which 
he  subsequently  bequeathed  to  the  University  of  Cambridge, 
where  it  is  still  preserved,  with  his  arrangement  carefully 
retained.  This  descriptive  part  of  this  work  is  interesting,  but 
his  conclusions  are  made  to  coincide  strictly  with  the  Scriptural 
account  of  the  creation  and  deluge.  He  had  previously  stated, 
in  another  work,  that  he  believed,  “  the  whole  terrestrial  globe 
to  have  been  taken  to  pieces  and  dissolved  at  the  flood,  and  the 
strata  to  have  settled  down  from  this  promiscuous  mass.”  In 
support  of  this  view,  he  stated  that,  “Marine  bodies  are  lodged 
in  the  strata  according  to  the  order  bf  their  gravity,  the  heavier 
shells  in  stones,  the  lighter  in  chalk,  and  so  of  the  rest.”* 

The  most  important  wTork  on  fossils  published  in  Germany 
at  this  time,  was  that  of  George  Wolfgang  Knorr,  which  was 
continued  after  his  death  by  Walcli.  This  work  consisted  of 
four  folio  volumes,  with  many  plates,  and  was  printed  at 
Nuremberg,  1755-73.  A  large  number  of  fossils  were  accu¬ 
rately  figured  and  described,  and  the  work  is  one  of  permanent 
value. f  A  French  translation  of  this  work  appeared  in 
1767-78.  Burton’s  “ Oryctographie  de  Bruxelles ,”  1784,  con¬ 
tains  figures  and  descriptions  of  fossils  found  in  Belgium. 

Abraham  Gottlieb  Werner  (1750-1817),  Professor  of  Min¬ 
eralogy  at  Freyberg,  did  much  to  advance  the  science  of 
Geology,  and  indirectly,  that  of  fossils.  He  first  indicated  the 
relations  of  the  main  formations  to  each  other,  and,  according 
to  his  pupil,  Professor  Jameson,  first  made  the  highly  important 

*  Essay  towards  a  Natural  History  of  the  Earth.  1695. 

f  Lapid.es  ex  celeberr.  viror.  sententia  diluvii  universalis  testes,  quos  in  ordines  ac 
species  distribuit,  suis  coloribus  expremit ,  etc.  272  Tab.  1755-73. 


19 


observation  “that  different  formations  can  be  discriminated 
by  tbe  petrifactions  they  contain.”  Moreover,  “  that  the  petri¬ 
factions  contained  in  the  oldest  rocks  are  very  different  from 
any  of  the  species  of  the  present  time  ;  that  the  newer  the 
formation,  the  more  do  the  remains  approach  in  form  to  the 
organic  beings  of  the  present  creation.”  Unfortunately, 
Werner  published  little,  and  his  doctrines  were  mainly  dis¬ 
seminated  by  his  enthusiastic  pupils. 

The  great  contest  between  the  Yulcanists  and  the  Neptunists 
started  at  this  time,  mainly  through  Werner,  whose  doctrines 
led  to  the  controversy.  The  comparative  merits  of  tire  and 
water,  as  agencies  in  the  formation  of  certain  rocks,  were  dis¬ 
cussed  with  a  heat  and  acrimony  characteristic  of  the  subject 
and  the  time.  Werner  believed  in  the  aqueous  theory,  while 
the  igneous  theory  was  especially  advocated  by  Hutton  of  Edin¬ 
burgh,  and  his  illustrator,  Playfair.  This  discussion  resulted 
in  the  advancement  of  descriptive  geology,  but  the  study  of 
fossils  gained  little  thereby. 

The  “ Protogaea ”  of  Leibnitz,  the  great  mathematician,  pub¬ 
lished  in  1749,  about  thirty  years  after  his  death,  was  a  work 
of  much  merit.  This  author  supposed  that  the  earth  had 
gradually  cooled  from  a  state  of  igneous  fusion,  and  was  subse¬ 
quently  covered  with  water.  The  subsidence  of  the  lower  part 
of  the  earth,  the  deposits  of  sedimentary  strata  from  inunda¬ 
tions,  and  their  induration,  as  well  as  other  changes,  followed. 
All  this,  he  supposed  to  have  been  accomplished  in  a  period  of 
six  natural  days.  In  the  same  work  Leibnitz  shows  that  he 
had  examined  fossils  with  considerable  care. 

Linnaeus  (1707-1778),  the  famous  Swedish  botanist,  and  the 
founder  of  the  modern  system  of  nomenclature  in  Natural 
History,  confined  his  attention  almost  entirely  to  the  living 
forms.  Although  he  was  familiar  with  the  literature  of  fossil 
remains,  and  had  collected  them  himself,  he  did  not  include 
them  in  his  system  of  plants  and  animals,  but  kept  them  sepa¬ 
rate,  with  the  minerals ;  hence  he  did  little  directly  to  advance 
this  branch  of  science. 


20 


During  tlie  last  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  belief 
that  fossil  remains  were  deposited  by  the  Deluge  sensibly 
declined,  and  the  dawn  of  a  new  era  gradually  appeared.  Let 
us  pause  for  a  moment  here,  and  see  what  real  progress  had 
been  made ;  what  foundation  had  been  laid  on  which  to  estab¬ 
lish  a  science  of  fossil  remains. 

The  true  nature  of  these  objects  had  now  been  clearly  deter¬ 
mined.  They  were  the  remains  of  animals  and  plants.  Most 
of  them  certainly  were  not  the  relics  of  the  Mosaic  Deluge, 
but  had  been  deposited  long  before,  part  in  fresh  water  and 
part  in  the  sea.  Some  indicated  a  mild  climate,  and  some  the 
tropics.  That  any  of  these  were  extinct  species,  was  as  yet 
only  suspected.  Large  collections  of  fossils  had  now  been 
made,  and  valuable  catalogues,  well  illustrated,  had  been  pub¬ 
lished.  Something  was  known,  too,  of  the  geological  position 
of  fossils.  Steno,  long  before,  had  observed  that  the  lowest 
rocks  were  without  life.  Lehmann  had  shown  that  above 
these  primitive  rocks,  and  derived  from  them,  were  the  sec¬ 
ondary  strata,  full  of  the  records  of  life ;  and  above  these  were 
alluvial  deposits,  which  he  referred  to  local  floods,  and  the 
Deluge  of  Hoah.  Rouelle,  Fuchsel,  and  Odoardi  had  shed 
new  light  on  this  subject.  Werner  had  distinguished  the  tran¬ 
sition  rocks,  containing  fossil  remains,  between  the  primitive 
and  the  secondary,  while  everything  above  the  chalk  he  grouped 
together,  as  the  “overflowed  land.”  Werner,  as  we  have  seen, 
had  done  more  than  this,  if  we  give  him  the  credit  his  pupils 
claim  for  him.  ILe  had  found  that  the  formations  he  examined 
contained  each  its  own  peculiar  fossils,  and  that  from  the  older 
to  the  newer  there  was  a  gradual  approach  to  recent  forms. 
William  Smith  had  worked  out  the  same  thing  in  England,  and 
should  equally  divide  the  honor  ,  of  this  important  discovery. 

The  greatest  advance,  however,  up  to  this  time,  was  that 
men  now  preferred  to  observe ,  rather  than  to  believe ,  and  facts 
were  held  in  greater  esteem  than  vague  speculations.  With 
this  preparation  for  future  progress,  the  second  period  in  the 
history  of  Palaeontology,  as  I  have  divided  it,  may  appropri¬ 
ately  be  considered  at  an  end. 


21 


Tims  far,  I  have  said  nothing  in  regard  to  one  branch  of 
my  subject,  the  rnethods  of  Palaeontological  research,  for  up  to 
this  time,  of  method  there  was  none.  We  have  seen  that  those 
of  the  ancients  who  noticed  marine  shells  in  the  solid  rock, 
called  them  such,  and  concluded  that  they  had  been  left  there 
by  the  sea.  The  discovery  of  fossils  led  directly  to  theories  of 
how  the  earth  was  formed.  Here  the  progress  was  slow. 
Subterranean  spirits  were  supposed  to  guard  faithfully  the 
mysteries  of  the  earth ;  while  above  the  earth,  Authority 
guarded  with  still  greater  power  the  secrets  men  in  advance 
of  their  age  sought  to  know.  The  dominant  idea  of  the  first 
sixteen  centuries  of  the  present  era  was,  that  the  universe 
was  made  for  Man.  This  was  the  great  obstacle  to  the  correct 
determination  of  the  position  of  the  earth  in  the  universe,  and, 
later,  of  the  age  of  the  earth.  The  contest  of  Astronomy 
against  authority  was  long  and  severe,  but  the  victory  was  at 
last  with  science.  The  contest  of  Geology  against  the  same 
power  followed,  and  continued  almost  to  our  day.  The  result, 
is  still  the  same.  In  the  early  stages  of  this  contest,  there  was 
no  strife,  for  science  was  benumbed  by  the  embrace  of  super¬ 
stition  and  creed,  and  little  could  be  done  till  that  was  cast  off. 
In  a  superstitious  age,  when  every  natural  event  is  referred  to 
a  supernatural  cause,  science  cannot  live ;  and  often  as  the 
sacred  fire  may  be  kindled  by  courageous  far-seeing  souls,  will 
it  be  quenched  by  the  dense  mists  of  ignorance  around  it. 
Scarcely  less  fatal  to  the  growth  of  science  is  the  age  of 
Authority,  as  the  past  proves  too  well.  With  freedom  of 
thought,  came  definite  knowledge,  and  certain  progress ; — but 
twTo  thousand  years  was  long  to  wait. 

With  the  opening  of  the  present  century,  began  a  new  era 
in  Palaeontology,  which  we  may  here  distinguish  as  the  third 
period  in  its  history.  This  branch  of  knowledge  became  now 
a  science.  Method  replaced  disorder,  and  systematic  study 
superseded  casual  observation.  For  the  next  half  century  the 
advance  wTas  continuous,  and  rapid.  One  characteristic  of  this 


22 


period  was,  the  accurate  determination  of  fossils  by  compar¬ 
ison  with  living  forms.  This  will  separate  it  from  the  two 
former  epochs.  Another  distinctive  feature  of  this  period  was 
the  general  belief  that,  every  species ,  recent  and  extinct ,  was 
a  separate  creation. 

At  the  very  beginning  of  the  epoch  we  are  now  to  consider, 
three  names  stand  out  in  bold  relief :  Cuvier,  Lamarck,  and 
William  Smith.  To  these  men,  the  science  of  palaeontology 
owes  its  origin.  Cuvier  and  Lamarck,  in  France,  had  all  the 
power  which  great  talent,  education,  and  station  could  give; 
William  Smith,  an  English  surveyor,  was  without  culture  or 
influence.  The  last  years  of  the  eighteenth  century  had  been 
spent  by  each  of  these  men  in  preparation  for  his  chosen 
work,  and  the  results  were  now  given  to  the  world.  Cuvier 
laid  the  foundation  of  the  palaeontology  of  Y ertebrate  animals ; 
Lamarck,  of  the  Invertebrates  ;  and  Smith  established  the  prin¬ 
ciples  of  Stratigraphical  Palaeontology.  The  investigator  of 
fossils  to-day  seldom  needs  to  consult  earlier  authors  of  the 
science. 

George  Cuvier  (1769-1832),  the  most  famous  naturalist  of  his 
time,  was  led  to  the  study  of  extinct  animals  by  ascertaining 
that  the  remains  of  fossil  elephants  he  examined  were  extinct 
species.  “  This  idea,”  he  says  later,  “  which  I  announced  to 
the  Institute  in  the  month  of  January  1796,  opened  to  me 
views  entirely  new  respecting  the  theory  of  the  earth,  and 
determined  me  to  devote  myself  to  the  long  researches  and  to 
the  assiduous  labors  which  have  now  occupied  me  for  twenty- 
five  years.”* 

It  is  interesting  to  note  here  that  in  this  first  investigation 
of  fossil  vertebrates,  Cuvier  employed  the  same  method  that 
gave  him  such  important  results  in  his  later  researches.  Remains 
#  of  elephants  had  been  known  to  Europe  for  centuries,  and  many 
authors,  from  Pliny  down  to  the  contemporaries  of  Cuvier,  had 
written  about  them.  Some  had  regarded  the  bones  as  those  of 
human  giants,  and  those  who  recognized  what  they  were  consid¬ 
ered  them  remains  of  the  elephants  imported  by  Hannibal  or 
*  Ossemens  Fossiles ,  Second  Edition,  Vol.  I,  p.  1*78. 


the  Romans.  Cuvier,  however,  compared  the  fossils  directly 
with  the  bones  of  existing  elephants,  and  proved  them  to  be 
distinct.  The  fact  that  these  remains  belonged  to  extinct 
species  was  of  great  importance.  In  the  case  of  fossil  shells, 
it  was  difficult  to  say  that  any  particular  form  was  not  living  in 
a  distant  ocean ;  but  the  two  species  of  existing  elephants,  the 
Indian  and  the  African,  were  wTell  known,  and  there  wras  hardly 
a  possibility  that  another  living  one  would  be  found. 

It  is  important  to  bear  in  mind,  too,  that  Cuvier’s  preparation 
for  the  study  of  the  remains  of  animals  was  far  in  advance  of 
any  of  his  predecessors.  He  had  devoted  himself  for  years  to 
careful  dissections  in  the  various  classes  of  the  animal  kingdom, 
and  was  really  the  founder  of  comparative  anatomy,  as  we  now 
understand  it.  Cuvier  investigated  the  different  groups  of  the 
whole  kingdom  with  care,  and  proposed  a  new  classiiication 
founded  on  the  plan  of  structure,  which  in  its  main  features  is 
the  one  in  use  to-day.  The  first  volume  of  his  Comparative 
Anatomy  appeared  in  1800,  and  the  work  was  completed  in 
five  volumes  in  1805. 

Previous  to  Cuvier,  the  only  general  catalogue  of  animals 
was  contained  in  Linnaeus’  “  Sy sterna  Natures?'  In  this  work, 
as  we  have  seen,  fossil  remains  were  placed  with  the  Minerals, 
not  in  their  appropriate  places  among  the  animals  and  plants. 
Cuvier  enriched  the  animal  kingdom  by  the  introduction 
of  fossil  forms  among  the  living,  bringing  all  together  into 
one  comprehensive  system.  His  great  work,  “  Le  Regne 
Animal ,”  appeared  in  four  volumes,  in  1817,  and  with  its  two 
subsequent  editions  remains  the  foundation  of  modern  zoology. 
Cuvier’s  classic  work  on  vertebrate  fossils — “  Recherehes  sur 
les  Ossemens  Fossiles ,”  in  four  volumes,  appeared  in  1812-13. 
Of  this  work,  it  is  but  just  to  say  that  it  could  only  have  been 
written  by  a  man  of  genius,  profound  knowledge,  the  greatest 
industry,  and  with  the  most  favorable  opportunities. 

The  introduction  to  this  work  was  the  famous  “Discourse 
on  the  Revolutions  of  the  Surface  of  the  Globe,”  which  has 
perhaps  been  as  widely  read  as  any  other  scientific  essay.  The 


24 


discovery  of  fossil  bones  in  the  gypsum  quarries  of  Paris,  by 
the  workmen,  who  considered  them  human  remains ;  the  care¬ 
ful  study  of  these  relics  by  Cuvier,  and  his  restorations  from 
them  of  strange  beasts  that  had  lived  long  before,  is  a  story 
with  which  you  are  all  familiar.  Cuvier  was  the  first  to  prove 
that  the  earth  had  been  inhabited  by  a  succession  of  different 
series  of  animals,  and  he  believed  that  those  of  each  period 
were  peculiar  to  the  age  in  which  they  lived. 

In  looking  over  his  work  after  a  lapse  of  three-quarters  of  a 
century,  we  can  now  see  that  Cuvier  was  wrong  on  some 
important  points,  and  failed  to  realize  the  direction  in  which 
science  was  rapidly  tending.  With  all  his  knowledge  of  the 
earth,  he  could  not  free  himself  from  tradition,  and  believed  in 
the  universality  and  power  of  the  Mosaic  deluge.  Again,  he 
refused  to  admit  the  evidence  brought  forward  by  his  distin¬ 
guished  colleagues  against  the  permanence  of  species,  and  used 
all  his  great  influence  to  crush  out  the  doctrine  of  evolution, 
then  first  proposed.  Cuvier’s  definition  of  a  species,  the  domi¬ 
nant  one  for  half  a  century,  was  as  follows :  “  A  species 
comprehends  all  the  individuals  which  descend  from  each 
other,  or  from  a  common  parentage,  and  those  which  resemble 
them  as  much  as  they  do  each  other.” 

The  law  of  “  Correlation  of  Structures,”  as  laid  down  by 
Cuvier,  has  been  more  widely  accepted  than  almost  any  thing 
else  that  bears  his  name ;  and  yet,  although  founded  in  truth, 
and  useful  within  certain  limits,  it  would  certainly  lead  to 
serious  error  if  applied  widely  in  the  way  he  proposed. 

In  his  Discourse,  he  sums  this  law  as  follows :  “  A  claw,  a 
shoulder  blade,  a  condyle,  a  leg  or  arm  bone,  or  any  other  bone 
separately  considered,  enables  us  to  discover  the  description  of 
teeth  to  which  they  have  belonged ;  so  also  reciprocally  we 
may  determine  the  form  of  the  other  bones  from  the  teeth. 
Thus,  commencing  our  investigation  by  a  careful  survey  of  any 
one  bone  by  itself,  a  person  who  is  sufficiently  master  of  the 
laws  of  organic  structure,  may,  as  it  were,  reconstruct  the 
whole  animal  to  which  that  bone  had  belonged.” 


We  know  to-day  that  unknown  extinct  animals  cannot  be 
restored  from  a  single  tooth  or  claw,  unless  they  are  very 
similar  to  forms  already  known.  Had  Cuvier,  himself,  applied 
his  methods  to  many  forms  from  the  early  Tertiary  or  older 
formations,  he  would  have  failed.  If,  for  instance,  he  had  had 
before  him  the  disconnected  fragments  of  an  Eocene  Tillodont, 
he  would  undoubtedly  have  referred  a  molar  tooth  to  one  of 
his  Pachyderms  ;  an  incisor  tooth  to  a  Rodent ;  and  a  claw  bone 
to  a  Carnivore.  The  tooth  of  a  Hesperornis  would  have  given 
him  no  possible  hint  of  the  rest  of  the  skeleton,  nor  its  swim¬ 
ming  feet  the  slightest  clue  to  the  ostrich-like  sternum  or  skull. 
And  yet,  the  earnest  belief  in  his  own  methods  led  Cuvier 
to  some  of  his  most  important  discoveries. 

Jean  Lamarck  (1744-1829),  the  philosopher  and  naturalist, 
a  colleague  of  Cuvier,  was  a  learned  botanist  before  he  became 
a  zoologist.  His  researches  on  the  invertebrate  fossils  of  the 
Paris  Basin,  although  less  striking,  were  not  less  important 
than  those  of  Cuvier  on  the  vertebrates ;  while  the  conclu¬ 
sions  he  derived  from  them  form  the  basis  of  modern  biology. 
Lamarck’s  method  of  investigation  was  the  same,  essentially,  as 
that  used  by  Cuvier,  namely :  a  direct  comparison  of  fossils 
with  living  forms.  In  this  way,  he  soon  ascertained  that  the 
fossil  shells  imbedded  in  the  strata  beneath  Paris  were,  many 
of  them,  extinct  species,  and  those  of  different  strata  differed 
from  each  other.  His  first  memoir  on  this  subject  appeared 
in  1802,*  and,  with  his  later  works,  effected  a  revolution  in 
concliology.  His  “  System  of  Invertebrate  Animals”  appeared 
the  year  before,  and  his  famous  “ Philosophie  Zoologique ,”  in 
1809.  In  these  two  works,  Lamarck  first  announced  the  princi¬ 
ples  of  Evolution.  In  the  first  volume  of  his  “  Natural  History 
of  Invertebrate  Animals, ”f  he  gave  his  theory  in  detail ;  and 
to-day  one  can  only  read  with  astonishment  his  far-reaching 
anticipations  of  modern  science.  These  views  were  strongly 

*  Memoir es  sur  les  fossiles  des  environs  de  Paris.  1802-6. 

\  Histoire  naturelle  des  animaux  sans  vertebres.  1  vols.  Paris,  1815-1822. 
2d  edition.  1 1  vols.  1835-1845. 


26 


supported  by  Geoffroy  Saint-Hilaire,  but  bitterly  opposed  by 
Cuvier ;  and  tbeir  great  contest  on  this  subject  is  well  known. 

In  looking  back  from  this  point  of  view,  the  philosophical 
breadth  of  Lamarck’s  conclusions,  in  comparison  with  those 
of  Cuvier,  is  clearly  evident.  The  invertebrates  on  which 
Lamarck  worked  offered  less  striking  evidence  of  change  than 
the  various  animals  investigated  by  Cuvier ;  yet  they  led 
Lamarck  directly  to  Evolution,  while  Cuvier  ignored  what 
Avas  before  him  on  this  point,  and  rejected  the  proof  offered 
by  others.  Both  pursued  the  same  methods,  and  had  an  abun¬ 
dance  of  material  on  which  to  work,  yet  the  facts  observed 
induced  Cuvier  to  believe  in  catastrophes ;  and  Lamarck,  in 
the  uniform  course  of  nature.  Cuvier  declared  species  to  be 
permanent ;  Lamarck,  that  they  were  descended  from  others. 
Both  men  stand  in  the  first  rank  in  science ;  but  Lamarck 
was  the  prophetic  genius,  half  a  century  in  advance  of  his  time. 

While  the  Paris  Basin  was  yielding  such  important  results 
for  Paleontology,  its  geological  structure  was  being  worked 
out  with  great  care.  The  results  appeared  in  a  volume  by 
Cuvier  and  Alex.  Brongniart,  chiefly  the  work  of  the  latter, 
published  in  1808.*  This  was  the  first  systematic  investigation 
of  Tertiary  strata.  Three  years  later,  the  work  was  issued  in 
a  more  extended  form.  The  separate  formations  were  here 
carefully  distinguished  by  their  fossils,  the  true  importance  of 
which  for  this  purpose  being  distinctly  recognized.  This 
advance  was  not  accepted  without  some  opposition,  and  it  is  an 
interesting  fact  that  Jameson,  who  claimed  for  Werner  the 
theory  here  put  in  practice,  rejected  its  application,  and  wrote 
as  follows :  “  To  Cuvier  and  Brongniart  we  are  indebted  for 
much  valuable  information  in  their  description  of  the  country 
around  Paris,  but  we  must  protest  against  the  use  they  have 
made  of  fossil  organic  remains  in  their  gcognostical  descrip¬ 
tions  and  investigations.’^ 

*  Essai  sur  la  Geographie  Mineralogique  des  environs  de  Paris.  4to,  1808. 

f  Translation  of  Cuvier’s  Discourse.  Note  K.  (B.),  p.  103,  1817. 


27 


William  Smith  (1769-1839),  “  the  father  of  English  Geology,” 
had  previously  published  a  “Tabular  View  of  the  British  Strata.” 
He  appears  to  have  arrived  independently  at  essentially  the 
same  view  as  Werner  in  regard  to  the  relative  position  of  strat¬ 
ified  rocks.  lie  had  determined  that  the  order  of  succession 
was  constant,  and  that  the  different  formations  might  be  identi¬ 
fied  at  distant  points  by  the  fossils  they  contained.  In  his 
later  works,  “Strata  identified  by  Organized  Fossils,”  pub¬ 
lished  in  1816-20,  and  “  Stratigrapliical  System  of  Organized 
Fossils,”  1817,  he  gave  to  the  world  results  of  many  years  of 
careful  investigations  on  the  Secondary  formations  of  England. 
In  the  latter  work,  he  speaks  of  the  success  of  his  method  in 
determining  strata  by  their  fossils,  as  follows  :  “  My  original 
method  of  tracirlg  the  strata  by  the  organized  fossils  imbedded 
therein,  is  thus  reduced  to  a  science  not  difficult  to  learn.  Ever 
since  the  first  written  account  of  this  discovery  was  circulated 
in  1799,  it  has  been  closely  investigated  by  my  scientific 
acquaintances  in  the  vicinity  of  Bath,  some  of  whom  search  the 
quarries  of  different  Strata  in  that  district,  with  as  much  cer¬ 
tainty  of  finding  the  characteristic  Fossils  of  the  respective 
rocks,  as  if  they  were  on  the  shelves  of  their  cabinets.” 

The  systematic  study  of  fossils  now  attracted  attention  in 
England,  also,  and  was  prosecuted  with  considerable  zeal, 
although  with  less  important  results  than  in  France.  An  ex¬ 
tensive  work  on  this  subject,  by  James  Parkinson,  entitled 
“  Organic  Remains  of  a  Former  World,”  was  begun  in  1804, 
and  completed  in  three  volumes  in  1811.  A  second  edition 
appeared  in  1833.  This  work  was  far  in  advance  of  previous 
publications  in  England,  and,  being  well  illustrated,  did  much 
to  make  the  collection  and  study  of  fossils  popular.  The  belief 
in  the  geological  effects  of  the  Deluge  had  not  yet  lost  its 
power,  although  restricted  now  to  the  later  deposits ;  for  Park¬ 
inson  in  his  later  edition  wrote  as  follows:  “Why  the  earth 
was  at  first  so  constituted  that  the  deluge  should  be  rendered 
necessary — why  the  earth  could  not  have  been  at  first  stored 
with  all  those  substances,  and  endued  with  all  those  properties 


which  seemed  to  have  proceeded  from  the  deluge — why  so  many 
beings  were  created,  as  it  appears,  for  the  purpose  of  being 
destroyed  —  are  questions  which  I  presume  not  to  answer.” 

William  Buckland  (1784-1856),  published  in  1823  his  cele¬ 
brated  “Reliquiae  Diluviance ,”  in  which  he  gave  the  results  of 
his  own  observations  in  regard  to  the  animal  remains  found  in 
the  caves,  fissures  and  alluvial  gravels  of  England.  The  facts 
presented  are  of  great  value,  and  the  work  was  long  a  model 
for  similar  researches.  Buckland’s  conclusions  were,  that  none 
of  the  human  remains  discovered  in  the  caves  were  as  old  as 
the  extinct  mammals  found  with  them,  and  that  the  Deluge 
was  universal.  In  speaking  of  fossil  bones  found  in  the 
Himalaya  mountains,  he  says :  “  The  occurrence  of  these  bones 
at  such  an  enormous  elevation  in  the  region  of  eternal  snow, 
and  consequently  in  a  spot  now  unfrequented  by  such  animals 
as  the  horse  and  deer,  can,  I  think,  be  explained  only  by  sup¬ 
posing  them  to  be  of  antediluvian  origin,  and  that  the  carcasses 
of  the  animals  were  drifted  to  their  present  place,  and  lodged 
in  sand,  by  the  diluvial  waters.” 

The  foundation  of  the  “  Geological  Society  of  London,”  in 
1807,  marks  an  important  point  in  the  history  of  palaeontology. 
To  carefully  collect  materials  for  future  generalizations,  was 
the  object  in  view,  and  this  organization  gradually  became 
the  centre  in  Great  Britain  for  those  interested  in  geological 
science.  The  society  was  incorporated  in  1826,  and  has  since 
been  the  leading  organization  in  Europe  for  the  advancement 
of  the  sciences  within  its  field.  The  Geological  Society  of 
France,  established  at  Paris  in  1832,  and  the  German  Geologi¬ 
cal  Society,  founded  at  Berlin  in  1848,  have  likewise  contribu¬ 
ted  largely  to  geological  investigations  in  these  countries,  and 
to  some  extent  in  other  parts  of  the  world.  In  the  jmblications 
of  these  three  societies,  the  student  of  palaeontology  will  find  a 
mine  of  valuable  materials  for  his  work. 

The  systematic  study  of  fossil  Plants  may  be  said  to  date 
from  the  publication  of  Adolphe  Brongniart’s  “Prodrome” 


29 


in  1828.*  This  was  very  soon  followed  by  his  larger  work, 
“ Ilistoire  des  vegetaux  f os  sites”  issued  in  1828-48.  Brong- 
niart  pursued  the  same  method  as  Cuvier  and  Lamarck,  viz : 
the  comparison  of  fossils  with  living  forms,  and  his  results 
were  of  great  importance.  In  his  “ Tableau  des  genres  vegetaux 
fossiles ,”  etc.,  published  in  Paris  in  1849,  he  gives  the  classifica¬ 
tion  and  distribution  of  the  genera  of  fossil  plants,  and  traces 
out  the  historical  progression  of  vegetable  life  on  the  globe,  as 
he  had  done  to  a  great  extent  in  his  previous  works.  He 
shows  that  the  cryptogamic  forms  prevailed  in  the  primary 
formations ;  the  conifers  and  cycads  in  the  secondary,  and  the 
higher  forms  in  the  Tertiary,  while  four  fifths  of  living  plants 
are  exogens. 

In  England,  Lindley  and  Hutton  published,  in  1831-37,  a 
valuable  wmrk  in  three  volumes,  entitled,  “  Fossil  Flora  of 
Great  Britain.”  This  work  was  illustrated  by  many  accurate 
plates,  in  which  the  plants  of  the  coal  formation  were  especially 
represented.  Henry  Witham  also  published  two  works  in  1831 
and  1833,  in  which  he  treated  especially  of  the  internal  struc¬ 
ture  of  fossil  plants.  “  Antediluvian  Phytology,”  by  Artis, 
was  published  in  London  in  1838.  Bowerbank’s  “  History  of 
the  Fossil  Fruits  and  Seeds  of  the  London  Clay,”  appeared  in 
1843.  Hooker’s  memoir  “On  the  Yegetation  of  the  Carbon¬ 
iferous  Period  as  compared  with  that  of  the  present  day,”  pub¬ 
lished  in  1848,  was  an  important  contribution  to  the  science. 
Bunbury,  Williamson,  and  others,  also  published  various 
papers  on  fossil  plants.  This  branch  of  Palseontology,  how¬ 
ever,  attracted  much  less  attention  in  England,  than  on  the 
Continent. 

In  Germany,  the  study  of  fossil  plants  dates  back  to  the 
beginning  of  the  century.  Yon  Schlotheim,  a  pupil  of  Wer¬ 
ner,  published  in  1804  an  illustrated  volume  on  this  subject. 
A  more  important  work  was  that  of  Count  Sternberg,  issued 
in  1820-38,  and  illustrated  with  excellent  plates.  Cotta  in 
1832  published  a  book  with  the  title,  “Die  Dendrolithen ,”  in 

*  Prodrome  d'une  histoire  des  vegetaux  fossiles.  8vo.  Paris,  1828. 


30 


wliicli  lie  gave  the  results  of  his  investigations  on  the  inner 
structure  of  fossil  plants.  Yon  Gutbier  in  1835,  and  Germar 
in  1844-53,  described  and  figured  the  plants  of  two  important 
localities  in  Germany.  Corda’s  “  Beitrage  zur  Flora  der 
Vorwelt ,”  issued  at  Prague,  in  1845,  was  essentially  a  continu¬ 
ation  of  the  work  of  Sternberg.  Unger’s  “  Chloris  protogcea” 
1841-45,  “ Genera  et  species  plantarum  fossilium”  1850,  and 
his  larger  work  published  in  1852,  are  all  standard  authorities. 
In  the  latter,  the  theory  of  descent  is  applied  to  the  vegetable 
world.  Schimper  and  Mougeot’s  “Monograph  on  the  fossil 
plants  of  the  Vosges,”  1845,  was  well  illustrated,  and  contained 
noteworthy  results. 

Goppert,  in  1836,  published  a  valuable  memoir  entitled, 
“  Sy sterna  Filicum  Fossilium ,”  in  which  he  made  known  the 
results  of  his  study  of  fossil  ferns.  In  the  same  year,  this 
botanist  began  a  series  of  experiments,  in  which  he  attempted 
to  imitate  the  process  of  fossilization,  as  found  in  nature.  lie 
steeped  various  animal  and  vegetable  substances  in  waters  hold¬ 
ing,  some  calcareous,  others  siliceous,  and  others  metallic  matter 
in  solution.  After  a  slow  saturation,  the  substances  were  dried, 
and  exposed  to  heat  until  the  organic  matters  were  burned. 
In  this  way  Goppert  successfully  imitated  various  processes  of 
petrifaction,  and  explained  many  things  in  regard  to  fossils 
that  had  previously  been  in  question.  His  discovery  of  the 
remains  of  plants  throughout  the  interior  of  coal  did  much  to 
clear  up  the  doubts  about  the  formation  of  that  substance.  In 
1841,  Goppert  published  an  important  work  in  which  he  com¬ 
pared  the  genera  of  fossil  plants  with  those  now  living.  In 
1852,  another  extensive  work  by  this  author  appeared,  entitled, 
uFossile  Flora  des  U ebergangs-  Gebirges  ” 

Andrse,  Braun,  D  linker,  Ettirisgliausen,  Geinitz,  and  Golden- 
berg,  all  made  notable  contributions  to  fossil  Botany  in 
Germany,  during  the  period  we  are  now  considering. 

The  systematic  study  of  invertebrate  fossils,  so  admirably 
begun  by  Lamarck,  was  continued  actively  in  France.  The 


31 


Tertiary  shells  of  the  Seine  valley  were  further  investigated  hy 
Def  ranee,  and  especially  hy  Deshay es,  whose  great  work  on 
this  subject  was  begun  in  1824*  DesMoulin’s  essay  on  Sjpher- 
ulites  in  1826,  Blainville’s  memoir  on  Belemnites  in  1827, 
Ferussac’s  various  memoirs  on  land  and  fresh  water  fossil 
shells,  were  valuable  additions  to  the  subject.  A  later  work  of 
great  importance  was  D’Orbigny’s  Paleontologie  Frangaise , 
1840-44,  which  described  the  mollusca  and  radiates  in  detail, 
according  to  formations.  The  other  publications  of  this  author 
are  both  numerous  and  valuable.  Brongniart  and  Desmarest’s 
“ Histoire  naturelle  des  Crustaces  Fossiles ,”  published  in  1822, 
is  a  pioneer  work  on  this  subject.  Michelins’  memoir  on  the 
fossil  corals  of  France,  1841-46,  was  another  important  contri¬ 
bution  to  palaeontology.  Agassiz’s  works  on  fossil  Echinoderms 
and  Mollusks  are  valuable  contributions  to  the  science.  The 
works  of  d’Archiac,  Coquand,  Cotteau,  Desor,  Edwards,  Ilaime, 
and  De  Verneuil,  are  likewise  of  permanent  value. 

In  Italy,  Bellardi,  Merian,  Michellotti,  Pliillipi,  Zigno,  and 
others,  contributed  important  results  to  Palaeontology. 

In  Belgium,  Bosquet,  Nyst,  Koninck,  Byckholt,  Yan  Ben- 
eden,  and  others,  have  all  aided  materially  in  the  progress  of 
the  science. 

In  England,  also,  invertebrate  fossils  were  studied  with  care, 
and  continued  progress  was  made.  Sowerby’s  “  Mineral  Concli- 
ology  of  Great  Britain,”  in  six  volumes,  a  systematic  work  of 
great  value,  was  published  in  1812-30,  and  soon  after  was  trans¬ 
lated  into  French  and  German.  Its  figures  of  fossil  shells  are 
excellent,  and  it  is  still  a  standard  work.  Miller’s  “  Natural 
History  of  the  Crinoidea,”  published  at  Bristol,  in  1821,  and 
Austin’s  later  monograph,  are  valuable  for  reference.  Brown’s 
“  Fossil  Conchology  of  Britain  and  Ireland”  appeared  in  1839, 
and  Brodie’s  History  of  the  Fossil  Insects  of  England,  in  1845. 
Phillips’  illustration  of  the  geology  of  Yorkshire,  1829-36,  and 
his  work  on  the  Palseozoic  fossils  of  Cornwall,  Devonshire,  and 
West  Somerset,  1843,  contained  a  great  deal  of  original  matter 

*  Description  des  coquilles  fossiles  des  environs  de  Paris.  3  vols.  Paris,  1824-37. 


32 


in  regard  to  fossil  remains.  Morris’  “  Catalogue  of  British 
Fossils,”  issued  in  1843,  and  the  later  edition  in  1854,  is  most 
useful  to  the  working  paleontologist.  The  memoirs  of  David¬ 
son  on  the  Brachiopoda,  Edwards,  Forbes,  Morris,  Lycett, 
Sharpe,  and  Wood  on  other  Mollusca,  Wright  on  the  Echino- 
derms,  Salter  on  Crustacea,  Busk  on  Polyzoa,  Jones  on  the 
Entomostraca,  and  Duncan  and  Lonsdale  on  Corals,  are  of 
especial  value.  King’s  volume  on  Permian  fossils,  Mantell’s 
various  memoirs,  Dixon’s  work  on  the  fossils  of  Sussex,  1850, 
and  McCoy’s  works  on  Palaeozoic  fossils,  all  deserve  honorable 
mention.  Sedgwick,  Murchison,  and  Lyell,  although  their 
greatest  services  were  in  systematic  geology,  each  contributed 
important  results  to  the  kindred  science  of  palaeontology  during 
the  period  we  are  reviewing. 

In  Germany,  Schlotheim’s  treatise,  “ Die  Petrifactenkunde ,” 
published  at  Gotha  in  1820,  did  much  to  promote  a  general 
interest  in  fossils.  By  far  the  most  important  work  issued  on 
this  subject  was  the  “ Petrifacta  Germanica ,”  by  Goldfuss, 
in  three  folio  volumes,  1826  to  1844,  which  has  lost  little  of 
its  value.  Bronn’s  “  Geschichte  der  Natur ,”  1841-46,  was  a 
work  of  great  labor,  and  one  of  the  most  useful  in  the  litera¬ 
ture  of  this  period.  The  author  gave  a  list  of  all  the  known 
fossil  species,  with  full  references,  and  also  their  distribution 
through  the  various  formations.  This  gave  exact  data  on  which 
to  base  generalizations,  hitherto  of  comparatively  little  value. 

Among  other  early  works  of  interest  in  this  department  may 
be  mentioned,  Dalman’s  memoir  on  Trilobites ,  1828,  and  Bur- 
meister’s  on  the  same  subject,  1843.  Giebel’s  well  known 
“ Fauna  der  Vorwelt ,”  1847-1856,  gave  lists  of  all  the  fossils 
described  up  to  that  time,  and  hence  is  a  very  useful  work. 
The  “  Letheea  Geognostica ”  by  Bronn,  1834-38,  and  the 
second  edition  by  Bronn  and  Boemer,  1846-56,  is  a  compre¬ 
hensive  general  treatise  on  Paleontology,  and  the  most  valuable 
work  of  the  kind  yet  published. 

The  researches  of  Ehrenberg,  in  regard  to  the  lowest  forms  • 
of  animals  and  plants,  threw  much  light  on  various  points  in 


33 


*) 


Palaeontology,  and  showed  the  origin  of  extensive  deposits, 
the  nature  of  which  had  before  been  in  doubt.  Yon  Buch, 
Barrande,  Beyrich,  Berendt,  Dunker,  Geinitz,  Heer,  Hornes, 
Klipstein,  Yon  Munster,  Beuss,  Roemer,  Sandberger,  Suess, 
Yon  Hagenow,  Yon  Hauer,  Zeiten,  and  many  others,  all  aided 
in  the  advancement  of  this  branch  of  science.  Angelin,  His- 
inger,  and  Nilsson,  in  Scandinavia;  Abich,  DeWaldheim,  Eich- 
wald,  Keyserling,  Kutorga,  Nordmann,  Pander,  Rouillier,  and 
Yolborth,  in  Russia*;  and  Pusch  in  Poland,  published  important 
results  on  fossil  invertebrates. 

The  impetus  given  by  Cuvier  to  the  study  of  vertebrate  fossils 
extended  over  Europe,  and  great  efforts  were  made  to  continue 
discoveries  in  the  direction  he  had  so  admirably  pointed  out. 

Louis  Agassiz  (1807-73),  a  pupil  of  Cuvier,  and  long  an 
honored  member  of  this  association,  attained  eminence  in  the 
study  of  ancient  as  well  as  of  recent  life.  His  great  work  on 
Fossil  Fishes*  deserves  to  rank  next  to  Cuvier’s  “Ossemens 
FossilesP  The  latter  contained  mainly  fossil  mammals  and 
reptiles,  while  the  fishes  were  left  without  a  historian  till 
Agassiz  began  his  investigations.  His  studies  had  admirably 
fitted  him  for  the  task,  and  his  industry  brought  together  a 
vast  array  of  facts  bearing  on  the  subject.  The  value  of  this 
grand  work  consists  not  only  in  its  faithful  descriptions  and 
plates,  but  also  in  the  more  profound  results  it  contained. 
Agassiz  first  showed  that  there  is  a  correspondence  between 
the  succession  of  fishes  in  the  rocks,  and  their  embryonal 
development.  This  is  now  thought  to  be  one  of  the  strongest 
points  in  favor  of  evolution,  although  its  discoverer  interpreted 
the  facts  as  bearing  the  other  way. 

Pander’s  memoirs  on  the  fossil  fishes  of  Russia  form  a 
worthy  supplement  to  Agassiz’s  classic  work.  Brandt’s  publi¬ 
cations  are  likewise  of  great  value ;  and  those  of  Lund,  in 
Sweden,  have  an  especial  interest  to  Americans,  in  consequence 
of  his  researches  in  the  caves  of  Brazil. 

*  Recherches  sur  les  Poissons  fossiles,  1833-45. 

5 


34 


Croizet  and  Jobert’s  u  Pecker  ches  sur  les  ossemens  fossiles 
du  department  du  Puy-de-Dome”  published  in  1828,  contained 
valuable  results  in  regard  to  fossil  mammals.  Geoffroy  St. 
Hilaire’s  researches  on  fossil  Reptiles,  published  in  1831,  were 
an  important  advance.  He  Serres  and  He  Christol’s  explora¬ 
tions  in  the  caverns  in  the  South  of  France,  published  between 
1829  and  1839,  were  of  much  value.  Schmerling’s  researches  in 
the  caverns  of  Belgium,  published  in  1833-36,  were  especially 
important  on  account  of  the  discovery  of  human  remains  min¬ 
gled  with  those  of  extinct  animals.  Heslongchamp’s  memoirs 
on  fossil  reptiles,  1835,  are  still  of  great  interest.  Pictet’s 
general  treatise  on  palaeontology  was  a  valuable  addition  to 
the  literature,  and  has  done  much  to  encourage  the  study  of 
fossils,*  HeBlainville,  in  his  grand  work,  “  Osteographies 
issued  in  1839-56,  brought  together  the  remains  of  living  and 
extinct  vertebrates,  forming  a  series  of  the  greatest  value  for 
study.  Aymard  and  Pomel’s  contributions  to  vertebrate  Palae¬ 
ontology  are  both  of  value.  Gervais  and  Lartet  added  much 
to  our  knowledge  of  the  subject,  and  Bravard  and  Hebert’s 
memoirs  are  well  known. 

The  brilliant  discoveries  of  Cuvier  in  the  Paris  Basin, 
excited  great  interest  in  England,  and  when  it  was  found  that 
the  same  Tertiary  strata  existed  in  the  south  of  England,  care¬ 
ful  search  was  made  for  vertebrate  fossils.  Remains  of  some 
of  the  same  genera  described  by  Cuvier  were  soon  discovered, 
and  other  extinct  animals  new  to  science  were  found  in 
various  parts  of  the  kingdom.  Konig,  to  whom  we  owe  the 
name  Ichthyosa%irus ,  and  Conybeare,  who  gave  the  generic 
designation  Plesiosaurus ,  and  also  Mosasaurus ,  were  among 
the  earliest  writers  in  England  on  fossil  reptiles.  The  discov¬ 
ery  of  these  three  extinct  types,  and  the  discussion  as  to  their 
nature,  forms  a  most  interesting  chapter  in  the  annals  of 
Palseontology.  The  discovery  of  the  Iguanodon ,  by  Mantell, 
and  the  Megalosaurus ,  by  Buckland,  excited  still  higher 

*  li  Traite  elementaire  de  paleontologies  etc*.,  Geneve.  4  vols.  1844  -46.  Second 
Edition.  Paris,  1853-55. 


35 


interest.  These  great  reptiles  differed  much  more  widely  from 
living  forms  than  the  mammals  described  by  Cuvier,  and  the 
period  in  which  they  lived  soon  became  known  as  the  “  age  of 
Reptiles.”  The  subsequent  researches  of  these  authors  added 
largely  to  the  existing  knowledge  of  various  extinct  forms, 
and  their  writings  did  much  to  arouse  public  interest  in  the 
subject. 

Richard  Owen,  a  pupil  of  Cuvier,  followed,  and  brought  to 
bear  upon  the  subject  an  extensive  knowledge  of  comparative 
anatomy,  and  a  wide  acquaintance  with  existing  forms.  His 
contributions  have  enriched  almost  every  department  of  palae¬ 
ontology,  and  of  extinct  vertebrates  especially,  he  has  been, 
since  Cuvier,  the  chief  historian.  The  fossil  reptiles  of 
England,  he  has  systematically  described,  as  well  as  those  of 
South  Africa,  The  extinct  Strutliious  birds  of  Hew  Zealand, 
he  has  made  known  to  science,  and  accurately  described  in 
extended  memoirs.  His  researches  on  the  fossil  mammals  of 
Great  Britain,  the  extinct  Edentates  of  South  America,  and 
the  ancient  Marsupials  of  Australia,  each  forms  an  important 
chapter  in  the  history  of  our  science. 

The  personal  researches  of  Falconer  and  Cautley  in  the 
Sewalik  Hills  of  India  brought  to  light  a  marvelous  vertebrate 
fauna  of  Pliocene  age.  The  remains  thus  secured  were  made 
known  in  their  great  work,  “ Fauna  Antiqua  Sivalensis ,” 
published  at  London  in  1845.  The  important  contributions  of 
Egerton  to  our  knowledge  of  fossil  fishes,  and  Jardine’s  well 
known  work,  “Ichnology  of  Annandale,”  also  belong  to  this 
period. 

The  study  of  vertebrate  fossils  in  Germany  was  pros¬ 
ecuted  with  much  success  during  the  present  period.  Blumen- 
bach,  the  ethnologist,  in  several  publications  between  1803 
and  1814,  recorded  valuable  observations  on  this  subject. 
In  1812,  Sommerring  gave  an  excellent  figure  of  a  pterodac¬ 
tyl  e,  which  he  named  and  described.  Goldfuss’  researches  on 
the  fossil  vertebrates  from  the  Caves  of  Germany,  published 
in  1820-23,  made  known  the  more  important  facts  of  that 


36 


interesting  fauna.  His  later  publications  on  extinct  Amphibians 
and  Reptiles  were  also  noteworthy.  Jager’s  investigations  on 
the  extinct  vertebrate  fauna  of  Wurtemberg,  published  between 
1824  and  1839,  were  an  important  advance.  To  Plieninger’s 
researches  in  the  same  region,  1834-44,  we  owe  the  discovery 
of  the  first  Triassic  mammal  (. Microlestes ),  as  well  as  important 
information  in  regard  to  Labyrinthodonts.  Kaup’s  researches 
on  fossil  mammals,  1832-41,  brought  to  light  many  interesting 
forms,  and  to  him  we  are  indebted  for  the  generic  name 
Dinotherium ,  and  excellent  descriptions  of  the  remains  then 
known. 

Count  Munster’s  “  Beitrage  zur  Petrifacten-Kunde ,”  pub¬ 
lished  1843-46,  contained  several  valuable  papers  on  fossil 
vertebrates ;  and  the  separate  papers  by  the  same  author  are  of 
interest.  Andreas  Wagner  wrote  on  Pterosaurians  in  1837, 
and  later  gave  the  first  description  of  fossil  mammals  of  the 
Tertiary  of  Greece,  1837-40.  Johannes  Muller  published  an 
important  illustrated  work  on  the  Zeuglodonts,  in  1849,  and 
various  notable  memoirs ;  and  Quenstedt,  interesting  descrip¬ 
tions  of  fossil  reptiles,  as  well  as  other  papers  of  much  value. 
Putimeyer’s  suggestive  memoirs  are  widely  known. 

Hermann  von  Meyer’s  contributions  to  vertebrate  palaeon¬ 
tology  are  by  far  the  most  important  published  in  Germany 
during  the  period  we  are  now  considering.  From  1830,  his 
investigations  on  this  subject  were  continuous  for  nearly  forty 
years,  and  his  various  publications  are  all  of  value.  His 
u Beitrage  zur  Petrifactenkunde ,”  1831-33,  contains  a  series  of 
valuable  memoirs.  His  “ Palceologica”  issued  in  1832,  includes 
a  synopsis  of  the  fossil  vertebrates  then  known,  with  much 
original  matter.  His  great  work,  “  Zur  Fauna  der  Vorwelt ,” 
1845-60,  includes  a  series  of  monographs  invaluable  to  the 
student  of  vertebrate  palaeontology.  This  work,  as  well  as  his 
other  chief  publications,  was  illustrated  with  admirable  plates 
from  his  own  drawings.  Other  memoirs  by  this  author  will  be 
found  in  the  “  Paloeontograjpliica ,”  of  which  he  was  one  of  the 
editors.  In  the  many  volumes  of  this  publication,  which  began 


37 


in  1851,  and  is  still  continued,  will  be  found  much  to  interest 
the  investigator  in  any  branch  of  palaeontology . 

The  “  Palseontographical  Society  of  London,”  established  in 
1847,  has  also  issued  a  series  of  volumes  containing  valuable 
memoirs  in  various  branches  of  Palaeontology.  These  two 
publications  together  are  a  storehouse  of  knowledge  in  regard 
to  extinct  forms  of  animal  and  vegetable  life. 

It  may  be  interesting  here  to  note  briefly  the  use  of  general 
terms  in  Palaeontology,  as  the  gradual  progress  of  the  science 
was  indicated  to  some  extent  in  its  terminology.  At  first,  and 
for  a  long  time,  the  name  “fossil”  was  appropriately  used  for 
objects  dug  from  the  earth,  both  minerals  and  organic  remains. 
The  term  “  Oryctology,”  having  essentially  the  same  meaning, 
was  also  used  for  this  branch  of  study.  For  a  long  period,  too, 
the  termination  ites  a  stone)  was  applied  to  fossils  to 

distinguish  them  from  the  corresponding  living  forms ;  as,  for 
instance,  “  Ostraeites”  used  by  Pliny.  At  a  later  date,  the 
general  name  “ figured  stones”  (lapides  figurati )  was  exten¬ 
sively  used  ;  and  less  frequently,  “  Deluge  stones  ”  ( lajpides 
diluviani).  The  term  “  organized  fossils  ”  was  used  to  distin¬ 
guish  fossils  from  minerals,  when  the  real  difference  became 
known,  although  the  name  “Reliquiae”  was  sometimes  em¬ 
ployed.  The  term  “petrifactions”  (. Petrificata )  was  defined 
by  John  Gesner  in  his  work  on  fossils  in  1758,  and  was 
afterwards  extensively  used.  Palaeontology  is  comparatively  a 
modern  term,  having  come  into  use  only  within  the  last  half 
century.  It  was  introduced  about  1830,  and  soon  was  generally 
adopted  in  France  and  England ;  but  in  Germany  it  met  with 
less  favor,  though  used  to  some  extent. 

It  would  be  interesting,  too,  did  time  permit,  to  trace  the 
various  opinions  and  superstitions,  held  at  different  times,  in 
regard  to  some  of  the  more  common  fossils,  for  example,  the 
Ammonite,  or  the  Belemnite.  Of  their  supposed  celestial 
origin ;  of  their  use  as  medicine  by  the  ancients,  and  in  the 


38 


East  to-day ;  of  tlieir  marvellous  power  as  charms,  among  the 
Romans,  and  still  among  the  American  Indians.  It  would  he 
instructive,  also,  to  compare  the  various  views  expressed  by  stu¬ 
dents  in  science,  concerning  some  of  the  stranger  extinct  forms, 
for  instance,  the  Nummulites,  among  Protozoa ;  the  Rudistes, 
among  Mollusks ;  or  the  Mosasaurus,  among  Reptiles.  Dissim¬ 
ilar  as  such  views  were,  they  indicate  in  many  cases  gropings 
after  truth, — natural  steps  in  the  increase  of  knowledge. 

The  third  period  in  the  history  of  Palaeontology,  which,  as  I 
have  said,  began  with  Cuvier  and  Lamarck  at  the  beginning  of 
the  present  century,  forms  a  natural  epoch  extending  through 
six  decades.  The  definite  characteristics  of  this  period,  as  stated, 
were  dominant  during  all  this  time,  and  the  progress  of  Palaeon¬ 
tology  was  commensurate  with  that  of  intelligence  and  culture. 

For  the  first  half  of  this  period,  the  marvelous  discoveries  in 
the  Paris  Basin  excited  astonishment,  and  absorbed  attention ; 
but  the  real  significance  and  value  of  the  facts  made  known  by 
Cuvier,  Lamarck,  and  William  Smith,  were  not  appreciated. 
There  was  still  a  strong  tendency  to  regard  fossils  merely  as 
interesting  objects  of  natural  history,  as  in  the  previous  period, 
and  not  as  the  key  to  profounder  problems  in  the  earth’s  his¬ 
tory.  Many  prominent  geologists  were  still  endeavoring  to 
identify  formations  in  different  countries  by  their  mineral 
characters,  rather  than  by  the  fossils  imbedded  in  them.  Such 
names  as  “Old  Red  Sandstone,”  and  “Hew  Red  Sandstone, 
were  given  in  accordance  with  this  opinion.  Humboldt,  for 
example,  attempted  to  compare  the  formations  of  South  Amer¬ 
ica  and  Europe  by  their  mineral  features,  and  doubted  the 
value  of  fossils  for  this  purpose.  In  1823,  he  wrote  as  follows : 
“  Are  we  justified  in  concluding  that  all  formations  are  char¬ 
acterized  by  particular  species  ?  that  the  fossil  shells  of  the 
chalk,  the  muschelkalk,  the  Jura  limestone,  and  the  Alpine 
limestones,  are  all  different  ?  I  think  this  would  be  pushing 
the  induction  much  too  far.”*  Jameson  still  thought  minerals 
*  Essai  geognostique  sur  legisement  des  Roches ,  p.  41. 


39 


more  important  than  fossils  for  characterizing  formations ; 
while  Bakewell,  later  yet,  defines  Palaeontology  as  comprising 
u  Fossil  Zoology  and  Fossil  Botany,  a  knowledge  of  which  may 
appear  to  the  student  as  having  little  connection  with  Geology.” 

During  the  later  half  of  the  third  period,  greater  progress 
was  made,  and  before  its  close  Geology  was  thoroughly  estab¬ 
lished  as  a  science.  Let  us  consider  for  a  moment  what  had 
really  been  accomplished  up  to  this  time. 

It  had  now  been  proved  beyond  question  that  portions  at 
least  of  the  Earth’s  surface  had  been  covered  many  times  by 
the  sea,  with  alternations  of  fresh  water  and  of  land  ;  that  the 
strata  thus  deposited  were  formed  in  succession,  the  lowest 
of  the  series  being  the  oldest ;  that  a  distinct  succession  of 
animals  and  plants  had  inhabited  the  earth  during  the  different 
geological  periods ;  and  that  the  order  of  succession  found  in 
one  part  of  the  earth  was  essentially  the  same  in  all.  More 
than  30,000  new  species  of  extinct  animals  and  plants  had  now 
been  described.  It  had  been  found,  too,  that  from  the  oldest 
formations  to  the  most  recent,  there  had  been  an  advance  in 
the  grade  of  life,  both  animal  and  vegetable,  the  oldest  forms 
being  -among  the  simplest,  and  the  higher  forms  successively 
making  their  appearance. 

It  had  now  become  clearly  evident,  moreover,  that  the  fossils 
from  the  older  formations  were  all  extinct  species,  and  that  only 
in  the  most  recent  deposits  were  there  remains  of  forms  still 
living.  The  equally  important  fact  had  been  established,  that 
in  several  groups  of  both  animals  and  plants,  the  extinct  forms 
were  vastly  more  numerous  than  the  living ;  while  several  orders 
of  fossil  animals  had  no  representatives  in  modern  times. 
Human  remains  had  been  found  mingled  with  those  of  extinct, 
animals,  but  the  association  was  regarded  as  an  accidental  one 
by  the  authorities  in  science ;  and  the  very  recent  appearance 
of  Man  on  the  earth  was  not  seriously  questioned.  Another 
important  conclusion  reached,  mainly  through  the  labors  of 
Lyell,  was,  that  the  earth  had  not  been  subjected  in  the  past  to 
sudden  and  violent  revolutions ;  but  the  great  changes  wrought 


40 


liad  been  gradual,  differing  in  no  essential  respect  from  those 
still  in  progress.  Strangely  enough,  the  corollary  to  this  propo¬ 
sition,  that  Life,  too,  had  been  continuous  on  the  earth,  formed 
at  that  date  no  part  of  the  common  stock  of  knowledge. 

In  the  physical  world,  the  great  law  of  “  Correlation  of 
forces  ”  had  been  announced,  and  widely  accepted  ;  but  in  the 
organic  world,  the  dogma  of  the  miraculous  creation  of  each 
separate  species  still  held  sway,  almost  as  completely  as  when 
Linnaeus  declared :  “  There  are  as  many  different  species  as 
there  were  different  forms  created  in  the  beginning  by  the 
Infinite  Being.”  But  the  dawn  of  a  new  era  was  already 
breaking,  and  the  third  period  of  palaeontology  we  may 
consider  now  at  an  end. 

Just  twenty  years  ago,  science  had  reached  a  point  when  the 
belief  in  “ special  creations”  was  undermined  by  well  estab¬ 
lished  facts,  slowly  accumulated.  The  time  was  ripe.  Many 
naturalists  were  working  at  the  problem,  convinced  that  Evo¬ 
lution  was  the  key  to  the  present  and  the  past.  But  how  had 
Nature  brought  this  change  about  ?  While  others  pondered, 
Darwin  spoke  the  magic  word  —  “  Natural  Selection ,”  and  a 
new  epoch  in  science  began. 

The  fourth  period  in  the  history  of  Palaeontology  dates  from 
this  time,  and  is  the  period  of  to-day.  One  of  the  main  char¬ 
acteristics  of  this  epoch  is  the  belief  that  all  life ,  living  and 
extinct ,  has  been  evolved  from  simple  forms .  Another  prom¬ 
inent  feature  is  the  accepted  fact  of  the  great  antiquity  of  the 
human  race.  These  are  quite  sufficient  to  distinguish  this 
period  sharply  from  those  that  preceded  it. 

The  publication  of  Charles  Darwin’s  work  on  the  u  Origin 
of  Species,”  November,  1859,  at  once  aroused  attention,  and 
started  a  revolution  which  has  already  in  the  short  space  of 
two  decades  changed  the  whole  course  of  scientific  thought. 
The  theory  of  “Natural  Selection,”  or  as  Spencer  has  hap¬ 
pily  termed  it,  the  “  Survival  of  the  Fittest,”  had  been  worked 
out  independently  by  Wallace,  who  justly  shares  the  honor  of 


41 


tlie  discovery.  We  have  seen  that  the  theory  of  Evolution  was 
proposed  and  advocated  by  Lamarck,  but  he  was  before  his 
time.  The  anonymous  author  of  the  “  V estiges  of  Creation,” 
which  appeared  in  1844,  advocated  a  somewhat  similar  theory 
which  attracted  much  attention,  but  the  belief  that  species  were 
immutable  was  not  sensibly  affected  until  Darwin’s  work 
appeared. 

The  difference  between  Lamarck  and  Darwin  is  essentially 
this  :  Lamarck  proposed  the  theory  of  Evolution  ;  Darwin 
changed  this  into  a  doctrine,  which  is  now  guiding  the  investi¬ 
gations  in  all  departments  of  biology.  Lamarck  failed  to  real¬ 
ize  the  importance  of  time,  and  the  interaction  of  life  on 
life.  Darwin,  by  combining  these  influences  with  those  also 
suggested  by  Lamarck,  has  shown  how  the  existing  forms  on 
the  earth  may  have  been  derived  from  those  of  the  past. 

This  revolution  has  influenced  Palaeontology  as  extensively 
as  any  other  department  of  science,  and  hence  the  new  period 
we  are  discussing.  In  the  last  epoch,  species  were  repre¬ 
sented  independently,  by  parallel  lines;  in  the  present  period, 
they  are  indicated  by  dependent,  branching  lines.  The  former 
was  the  analytic,  the  latter  is  the  synthetic,  period.  To-day,  the 
animals  and  plants  now  living  are  believed  to  be  genetically 
connected  with  those  of  the  distant  past ;  and  the  palaeontologist 
no  longer  deems  species  of  the  first  importance,  but  seeks  for 
relationships  and  genealogies,  connecting  the  past  with  the 
present.  Working  in  this  spirit,  and  with  such  a  method,  the 
advance  during  the  last  decade  has  been  great,  and  is  an  earnest 
of  what  is  yet  to  come. 

The  progress  of  Palaeontology  in  Great  Britain  during  the 
present  period  has  been  great,  and  the  general  interest  in  the 
science  much  extended.  The  views  of  Darwin  soon  found 
acceptance  here.  Next  to  his  discovery  of  “Natural  Selection,” 
Darwin  was  fortunate  in  having  so  able  and  bold  an  expounder 
as  Huxley ;  who  was  one  of  the  first  to  adopt  his  theory,  and 
give  it  a  vigorous  support.  Huxley’s  masterly  researches  have 
6 


42 


been  of  great  benefit  to  all  departments  of  Biology,  and  bis 
contributions  to  Palaeontology  are  invaluable.  Among  the 
latter,  his  original  investigations  on  the  relations  of  Birds  and 
Beptiles  are  especially  noteworthy.  His  various  memoirs  on 
extinct  Beptiles,  Amphibians  and  Fishes,  belong  to  the  perma¬ 
nent  literature  of  the  subject.  The  important  researches  of  Owen 
on  the  fossil  vertebrates  have  been  continued  to  the  present 
time.  He  has  added  largely  to  his  previous  publications  on 
the  British  fossil  Beptiles,  Birds,  and  Mammals ;  the  extinct 
reptiles  of  South  Africa,  and  the  Post-Tertiary  birds  of  Hew 
Zealand.  His  description  of  the  Archaeopteryx  near  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  the  period  was  a  most  ’welcome  contribution. 

The  investigations  of  Egerton  on  Fossil  Fishes  have  likewise 
been  continued  with  important  results.  Busk,  Dawkins,  Flower 
and  Sanford  have  made  valuable  contributions  to  the  history  of 
fossil  Mammals.  Bell,  Gunther,  Hulke,  Lankester,  Powrie, 
Miall,  and  Seely,  have  made  notable  additions  to  our  knowledge 
of  Beptiles,  Amphibians,  and  Fishes.  Among  Invertebrates,  the 
Crustacea  have  been  especially  studied  by  Jones,  Salter,  and 
Woodward.  Davidson,  Etheridge,  Lycett,  Morris,  Phillips, 
Wood,  and  Wright  have  continued  their  researches  on  the 
Mollusks;  Duncan,  Hicholson  and  others  have  investigated  the 
extinct  Corals;  and  Binney,  Carruthers,  and  Williamson,  the 
Fossil  Plants.  Mumerous  other  important  contributions  have 
been  made  to  the  science  in  Great  Britain  during  the  present 
period. 

On  the  Continent,  the  advance  in  Palaeontology  has,  during 
the  last  two  decades,  been  equally  great.  In  France,  Gervais 
continued  his  memoirs  on  extinct  vertebrates  nearly  to  the 
present  date ;  while  Gaudry  has  published  several  volumes  on 
the  subject  that  are  models  for  all  students  of  the  science.  His 
work  on  the  fossil  animals  of  Greece  is  a  perfect  monograph 
of  its  kind,  and  his  later  publications  are  all  of  importance. 
Lartet’s  various  works  are  of  permanent  value,  and  his  applica¬ 
tion  of  Palaeontology  to  Archaeology  brought  notable  results. 
The  volume  of  Alphonse  Miln e-Edwards  on  fossil  Crustacea 


43 


was  a  fit  supplement  to  Brongniart  and  Desmarest’s  well  known 
work  ;  wliile  his  grand  memoir  on  fossil  Birds  deserves  to 
rank  with  the  classic  volumes  of  Cuvier.  Duvernoy,  Filhol, 
Hebert,  Sauvage  and  others  have  also  published  interesting 
results  on  fossil  vertebrates. 

Van  Beneden’s  researches  on  the  fossil  vertebrates  of  Bel¬ 
gium  have  produced  results  of  great  value.  Pictet,  Riitimeyer, 
and  Wedersheim  in  Switzerland,  Bianconi,  Forsytli-Major,  and 
Sismonda  in  Italy,  and  Nodot  in  Spain,  have  likewise  published 
important  memoirs.  The  extinct  vertebrates  have  been  studied 
in  Germany  by  Von  Meyer,  Carus,  Fraas,  Giebel,  Haeckel, 
Haase,  Ilensel,  Kayser,  Kner,  Ludwig,  Peters,  Portis,  Maack, 
Salenka,  Zittel,  and  many  others;  in  Holland  by  Winkler,  in 
Denmark  by  Reinhardt ;  and  in  Russia  by  Brandt  and 
Kowalewsky. 

The  fossil  invertebrates  have  been  investigated  with  care  by 
D’Archiac,  D’Orbigny,  Bayle,  Fromentel,  Oustalet,  and  others 
in  France;  Desor,  Loriol  and  Roux  in  Switzerland;  Cappellini, 
Massalongo,  Michellotti,  Meneghini,  and  Sismonda  in  Italy, 
Barrande,  Benecke,  Beyrich,  Dames,  Dorn,  Ehlers,  Geinitz, 
Giebel,  Giimbel,  Feistmantel,  Hagen,  von  Hauer,  von  Heyden, 
von  Fritsch,  Laube,  Oppel,  Quenstedt,  Roemer,  Schliiter,  Suess, 
Speyer,  and  Zittel  in  Germany.  The  fossil  Plants  have  been 
studied  in  these  countries  by  Massalongo,  Saporta,  Zigno, 
Fiedler,  Goldenberg,  Gehler,  Heer,  Goeppert,  Ludwig,  Schim- 
per,  Schenk,  and  many  others. 

Among  the  recent  researches  in  Palaeontology  in  other 
regions  may  be  mentioned  those  of  Blanford,  Feistmantel, 
Lydekker,  and  Stoliczka,  in  India ;  Haast  and  Hector  in  New 
Zealand,  and  Krefft  and  McCoy  in  Australia ;  all  of  whom 
have  published  valuable  results. 

Of  the  progress  of  palaeontology  in  America,  I  have  thus  far 
said  nothing,  and  I  need  now  say  but  little,  as  many  of  you  are 
doubtless  familiar  with  its  main  features.  During  the  first 
and  second  periods  in  the  history  of  palaeontology,  as  I  have 


44 


defined  them,  America,  for  most  excellent  reasons,  took  no 
part.  In  tlie  present  century,  during  the  tliird  period,  appear 
the  names  of  Bigsby,  Green,  Morton,  Mitchell,  Rafinesque, 
Say,  and  Troost,  all  of  whom  deserve  mention.  More  recently, 
the  researches  of  Conrad,  Dana,  Deane,  DeKay,  Emmons, 
Gibbes,  Hitchcock,  Holmes,  Lea,  McChesney,  Owen,  Redfield, 
Rogers,  Shumard,  Swallow,  and  many  others,  have  enlarged 
our  knowledge  of  the  fossils  of  this  country. 

The  contributions  of  James  Hall  to  the  Invertebrate  Palaeon¬ 
tology  of  this  country  form  the  basis  of  our  present  knowledge 
of  the  subject.  The  extensive  labors  of  Meek  in  the  same 
department  are  likewise  entitled  to  great  credit,  and  will  form 
an  important  chapter  in  the  history  of  the  science.  The 
memoirs  of  Billings,  Gabb,  Scudder,  White,  and  Whitfield  are 
numerous  and  important  ;  and  the  publications  of  Derby, 
Hartt,  James,  Miller,  Shaler,  Rathburn,  and  Winchell,  are  also 
of  value.  To  Dawson,  Lesquereux,  and  Hewberry,  we  mainly 
owe  our  present  knowledge  of  the  fossil  plants  of  this  country. 

The  foundation  of  our  vertebrate  Palaeontology  was  laid  by 
Leidy,  whose  contributions  have  enriched  nearly  every  depart¬ 
ment  of  the  subject.  The  numerous  publications  of  Cope  are 
well  known.  Agassiz,  Allen,  Baird,  Dawson,  Deane,  DeKay, 
Emmons,  Gibbes,  Harlan,  Hitchcock,  Jefferson,  Lea,  LeConte, 
He  wherry,  Redfield,  St.  John,  Warren,  •  Whitney,  Worthen, 
Wyman,  and  others,  have  all  added  to  our  knowledge  of 
American  fossil  vertebrates.  The  chief  results  in  this  depart¬ 
ment  of  our  subject,  I  have  already  laid  before  you  on  a 
previous  occasion,  and  hence  need  not  dwell  upon  them  here. 

In  this  rapid  sketch  of  the  history  of  Palaeontology,  I  have 
thought  it  best  to  speak  of  the  earlier  periods  more  in  detail,  as 
they  are  less  generally  known,  and  especially  as  they  indicate 
the  growth  of  the  science,  and  the  obstacles  it  had  to  surmount. 
With  the  present  work  in  palaeontology,  moreover,  you  are  all 
more  or  less  familiar,  as  the  results  are  now  part  of  the  current 
literature.  To  assign  every  important  discovery  to  its  author, 


45 


would  have  led  me  far  beyond  my  present  plan.  I  have  only 
endeavored  to  indicate  the  growth  of  the  science  by  citing  the 
more  prominent  works  that  mark  its  progress,  or  illustrate  the 
prevailing  opinions  and  state  of  knowledge  at  the  time  they 
were  written. 

In  considering  what  has  been  accomplished,  directly  or  indi¬ 
rectly,  it  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  that  without  palaeontology 
there  would  have  been  no  science  of  geology.  The  latter- 
science  originated  from  the  study  of  fossils,  and  not  the  reverse, 
as  generally  supposed.  Palaeontology,  therefore,  is  not  a  mere 
branch  of  geology,  but  the  foundation  on  which  that  science 
mainly  rests.  This  fact  is  a  sufficient  excuse,  if  one  were  want¬ 
ing,  for  noting  the  early  opinions  in  regard  to  the  changes  of 
the  earth’s  surface,  as  these  changes  were  first  studied  to  explain 
the  position  of  fossils.  The  investigation  of  the  latter  first  led 
to  theories  of  the  earth’s  formation,  and  thus  to  geology.  When 
speculation  replaced  observation,  fossils  were  discarded,  and 
for  a  time  the  mineral  characters  of  strata  were  thought  to  be 
the  key  to  their  position  and  age.  For  some  time  after  this, 
geologists,  as  we  have  seen,  apologized  for  using  fossils  to  deter¬ 
mine  formations,  but  for  the  last  half  century  their  value  for 
this  purpose  has  been  fully  recognized. 

The  services  which  Palaeontology  has  rendered  to  Botany 
and  Zoology  are  less  easy  to  estimate,  but  are  very  extensive. 
The  classification  of  these  sciences  has  been  rendered  much 
more  complete  by  the  intercalation  of  many  intermediate 
forms.  The  probable  origin  of  various  living  species  has  been 
indicated  by  the  genealogies  suggested  by  extinct  types ;  while 
our  knowledge  of  the  geographical  distribution  of  animals  and 
plants  at  the  present  day  has  been  greatly  improved  by  the 
facts  brought  out  in  regard  to  the  former  distribution  of  life 
on  the  globe. 

Among  the  vast  number  of  new  species  which  have  been  added 
are  the  representatives  of  a  number  of  new  orders  entirely  un¬ 
known  among  living  forms.  The  distribution  of  these  extinct 
orders,  among  the  different  classes,  is  interesting,  as  they 


46 


are  mainly  confined  to  the  higher  groups.  Among  the  fossil 
Plants,  no  new  orders  have  yet  been  found.  There  are  none 
known  among  the  Protozoa,  or  the  Mollusca.  The  Padiates 
have  been  enriched  by  the  extinct  orders  of  Blastoidea,  Cystidea, 
and  Edrioasterida ;  and  the  Crustaceans  by  the  Eurypterida  and 
Trilobita.  Among  the  V ertebrates,  no  extinct  order  of  fossil 
Fishes  has  yet  been  found ;  but  the  Amphibians  have  been 
enlarged  by  the  important  order  Labyrinthodonta.  The  great¬ 
est  additions  have  been  among  the  Peptiles,  where  the  majority 
of  the  orders  are  extinct.  Here  we  have  at  the  present  date 
the  Iehthyosauria,  Sauranodontia,  Plesiosauria  and  Mosasauria, 
among  the  marine  forms ;  the  Pterosauria,  including  the 
Pteranodontia,  containing  the  flying  forms  ;  and  the  Dinosauria, 
including  the  Sauropoda — the  giants  among  reptiles ;  likewise 
the  Dicynodontia,  and  probably  the  Theriodontia,  among  the 
terrestrial  forms.  Although  but  few  fossil  Birds  have  been 
found  below  the  Tertiary,  we  have  already  among  the  Mesozoic 
forms  three  new  orders :  the  Saururse,  represented  by  Archce- 
opteryx /  the  Odontotormse,  with  Ichthyornis  as  the  type ;  and 
the  Odontolcse,  based  upon  Ilesperornis  /  all  of  these  orders 
being  included  in  the  sub-class  Odontornithes,  or  toothed  birds. 
Among  Mammals,  the  new  groups  regarded  as  orders  are  the 
Toxodontia,  and  the  Dinocerata,  among  the  Ungulates ;  and 
the  Tillodontia,  including  strange  Eocene  Mammals  whose 
exact  affinities  are  yet  to  be  determined. 

Among  the  important  results  in  vertebrate  palaeontology,  are 
the  genealogies,  made  out  with  considerable  probability,  for 
various  existing  animals.  Many  of  the  larger  mammals  have 
been  traced  back  through  allied  forms  in  a  closely  connected 
series  to  early  Tertiary  times.  In  several  cases  the  series  are 
so  complete  that  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  line  of 
descent  has  been  established.  The  Evolution  of  the  horse,  for 
example,  is  to-day  demonstrated  by  the  specimens  now  known. 
The  demonstration  in  one  case  stands  for  all.  The  evidence  in 
favor  of  the  genealogy  of  the  horse  now  rests  on  the  same 


47 


foundation  as  the  proof  that  any  fossil  bone  once  formed  part 
of  the  skeleton  of  a  living  animal.  A  special  creation  of  a 
single  bone  is  as  probable  as  the  special  creation  of  a  single 
species.  The  method  of  the  palaeontologist  in  the  investigation 
of  the  one,  is  the  method  for  the  other.  The  only  choice  lies 
between  natural  derivation  and  supernatural  creation. 

For  such  reasons  it  is  now  regarded  among  the  active 
workers  in  science  as  a  waste  of  time  to  discuss  the  truth  of 
Evolution.  The  battle  on  this  point  has  been  fought,  and  won. 

The  geographical  distribution  of  animals  and  plants,  as  well 
as  their  migrations,  has  received  much  new  light  from  Palae¬ 
ontology.  The  fossils  found  in  some  natural  divisions  of  the 
earth  are  related  so  closely  to  the  forms  now  living  there,  that 
a  genetic  connection  between  them  can  hardly  be  doubted. 
The  extinct  Marsupials  of  Australia,  and  the  Edentates  of 
South  America,  are  well  known  examples.  The  Pliocene  hip¬ 
popotami  of  Asia  and  the  South  of  Europe  point  directly  to 
migrations  from  Africa.  Other  similar  examples  are  numerous. 
The  fossil  plants  of  the  Arctic  region  prove  the  existence  of  a 
climate  there  far  milder  than  at  present,  and  recent  researches 
at  least  render  more  probable  the  suggestion,  made  long  ago  by 
Buffon,  in  his  “  Epochs  of  Nature,”  that  life  began  in  the  polar 
regions,  and  by  successive  migrations  from  them  the  conti¬ 
nents  were  peopled. 

The  great  services  which  Comparative  Anatomy  rendered  to 
Palaeontology  at  the  hands  of  Cuvier,’  Agassiz,  Owen,  and 
others,  have  been  amply  repaid.  The  solution  of  some  of  the 
most  difficult  problems  in  Anatomy  has  received  scarcely  less 
aid  from  the  extinct  forms  discovered,  than  from  Embryology ; 
and  the  two  lines  of  research  supplement  each  other.  Our 
present  knowledge  of  the  vertebrate  skull,  the  limb-arches,  and 
the  limbs,  has  been  much  enlarged  by  researches  in  Palaeontol¬ 
ogy.  On  the  other  hand,  the  recent  labors  of  Gegenbaur, 
Huxley,  Parker,  Balfour,  and  Thacker,  will  make  clear  many 
obscure  points  in  ancient  Life. 


48 


One  of  the  important  results  of  recent  palaeontological 
research,  is  the  law  of  brain-growth,  found  to  exist  among 
extinct  mammals,  and  to  some  extent  in  other  vertebrates. 
According  to  this  law,  as  I  have  briefly  stated  it  elsewhere : 
“  All  Tertiary  mammals  had  small  brains.  There  was,  also,  a 
gradual  increase  in  the  size  of  the  brain  during  this  period. 
This  increase  was  confined  mainly  to  the  cerebral  hemispheres, 
or  higher  portions  of  the  brain.  In  some  groups,  the  convolu¬ 
tions  of  the  brain  have  gradually  become  more  complicated. 
In  some,  the  cerebellum  and  the  olfactory  lobes  have  even 
diminished  in  size.”  More  recent  researches  render  it  probable 
that  the  same  general  law  of  brain-growth  holds  good  for  birds 
and  reptiles  from  the  Mesozoic  to  the  present  time.  The  Cre¬ 
taceous  birds,  that  have  been  investigated  with  reference  to  this 
point,  had  brains  only  about  one-tliird  as  large  in  proportion  as 
those  nearest  allied  among  living  species.  The  Dinosaurs  from 
our  Western  Jurassic  follow  the  same  law,  and  had  brain  cav¬ 
ities  vastly  smaller  than  any  existing  reptiles.  Many  other 
facts  point  in  the  same  direction,  and  indicate  that  the  general 
law  will  hold  good  for  all  extinct  vertebrates. 

Palaeontology  has  rendered  great  service  to  the  more  recent 
science  of  Archaeology.  At  the  beginning  of  the  present  period, 
a  re-examination  of  the  evidence  in  regard  to  the  antiquity  of 
the  human  race  was  going  on,  and  important  results  were  soon 
attained.  Evidence  in  favor  of  the  presence  of  man  on  the 
earth  at  a  period  far  earlier  than  the  accepted  chronology  of  six 
thousand  years  would  imply,  had  been  gradually  accumulating ; 
but  had  been  rejected  from  time  to  time  by  the  highest  authori¬ 
ties.  In  1823,  Cuvier,  Brongniart,  and  Buckland,  and  later, 
Lyell,  refused  to  admit  that  human  relics,  and  the  bones  of 
extinct  animals  found  with  them,  were  of  the  same  geological 
age,  although  experienced  geologists,  such  as  Bone  and  others, 
had  been  convinced  by  collecting  them.  Christol,  Serres,  and 
Tournal,  in  France,  and  Schmerling  in  Belgium,  had  found 
human  remains  in  caves,  associated  closely  with  those  of  various 
extinct  mammals,  and  other  similar  facts  were  on  record. 


49 


Boucher  de  Perthes,  in  1841,  began  to  collect  stone  imple¬ 
ments  in  the  gravels  of  the  valley  of  the  Somme,  and,  in  1847, 
published  the  first  volume  of  his  “ Antiquites  Celtiques .”  In 
this  work,  he  described  the  specimens  he  had  found,  and  asserted 
their  great  antiquity.  The  facts  as  presented,  however,  were 
not  generally  accepted.  Twelve  years  later,  Falconer,  Evans, 
and  Prestwich  examined  the  same  localities  with  care,  became 
convinced,  and  the  results  were  published  in  1859  and  1860. 
About  the  same  time  Gaudry,  Hebert,  and  Desnoyers,  also  ex¬ 
plored  the  same  valley,  and  announced  that  the  stone  imple¬ 
ments  there  wfcre  as  ancient  as  the  mammoth  and  rhinoceros 
found  with  them.  Explorations  in  the  Swiss  lakes  and  in  the 
Danish  shell  heaps  added  new  testimony  hearing  in  the  same 
direction.  In  1863,  appeared  Ly ell’s  work  on  the  “  Geo¬ 
logical  Evidences  of  the  Antiquity  of  Man,”  in  which  facts 
were  brought  together  from  various  parts  of  the  world,  proving 
beyond  question  the  great  age  of  the  human  race. 

The  additional  proof  since  brought  to  light  has  been  exten¬ 
sive,  and  is  still  rapidly  increasing.  The  Quaternary  age  of 
man  is  now  generally  accepted.  Attempts  have  recently  been 
made  to  approximate  in  years  the  time  of  man’s  first  ajDpear- 
ance  on  the  earth.  One  high  authority  has  estimated  the 
antiquity  of  man  merely  to  the  last  glacial  epoch  of  Europe  as 
250,000  years ;  and  those  best  qualified  to  judge,  would,  I 
think,  regard  this  as  a  fair  estimate. 

Important  evidence  has  likewise  been  adduced  of  man’s 
existence  in  the  Tertiary,  both  in  Europe  and  America.  The 
evidence  to-day  is  in  favor  of  the  presence  of  man  in  the 
Pliocene  of  this  country.  The  proof  offered  on  this  point  by 
Professor  J..  D.  Whitney,  in  his  recent  work,*  is  so  strong, 
and  his  careful,  conscientious  method  of  investigation  so  well 
known,  that  his  conclusions  seem  irresistible.  Whether  the 
Pliocene  strata  he  has  explored  so  fully  on  the  Pacific  coast 
corresponds  strictly  with  the  deposits  which  bear  this  name  in 
Europe,  may  be  a  question  requiring  further  consideration. 

*  Auriferous  Gravels  of  the  Sierra  Nevada  of  California.  18t9. 

1 


50 


At  present,  tlie  known  facts  indicate  that  the  American  beds 
containing  human  remains,  and  works  of  man,  are  as  old  as  the 
Pliocene  of  Europe.  The  existence  of  Man  in  the  Tertiary 
period  seems  now  fairly  established. 

In  looking  back  over  the  history  of  Palaeontology,  much 
seems  to  have  been  accomplished ;  and  yet  the  work  has  hut 
just  begun.  A  small  fraction  only  of  the  earth’s  surface  has 
been  examined,  and  two  large  continents  are  waiting  to  be 
explored.  The  “  imperfection  of  the  geological  record,”  so 
often  cited  by  friends  and  foes,  still  remains,  although  much 
improved ;  but  the  future  is  full  of  promise.  In  filling  out 
this  record,  America,  I  believe,  will  do  her  full  share,  and 
thus  aid  in  the  solution  of  the  great  problems  now  before  us. 

I  have  endeavored  to  define  clearly  the  different  periods 
in  the  history  of  Palaeontology.  If  I  may  venture,  in  conclu¬ 
sion,  to  characterize  the  present  period  in  all  departments  of 
science,  its  main  feature  would  be  a  belief  in  universal  laws. 
The  reign  of  Law,  first  recognized  in  the  physical  world,  has 
now  been  extended  to  Life,  as  well.  In  return,  Life  has  given 
to  inanimate  nature  the  key  to  her  profounder  mysteries — 
Evolution,  which  embraces  the  universe. 

What  is  to  be  the  main  characteristic  of  the  next  period  1 
~No  one  now  can  tell.  But  if  we  are  permitted  to  continue  in 
imagination  the  rapidly  converging  lines  of  research  pursued 
to-day,  they  seem  to  meet  at  the  point  where  organic  and 
inorganic  nature  become  one.  That  this  point  will  yet  be 
reached,  I  cannot  doubt. 


i 


Tuttle,  Morehouse  &  Taylor,  Printers,  New  Haven,  Conn. 


